Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 78

Mon, 29 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Lag B'omer (Micha Berger)
• 2. vital functions (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Wearing Two Pair of Tefillen at the Same Time (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Eel DNA (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 5. Re: Lag B'omer (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. Lag B'omer (M Cohen)
• 7. Re: Kiddush HaShem, Defying Their Expectations and Demands (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 8. Re: Kiddush HaShem, Defying Their Expectations and Demands (Zev Sero)
• 9. Parent who instructs child not to observe Shana (Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer)
• 10. Minhag Yisrael (Liron Kopinsky)
• 11. Re: Wearing Two Pair of Tefillen at the Same Time (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Parent who instructs child not to observe Shana (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Wearing Two Pair of Tefillen at the Same Time (Gershon Dubin)
• 14. Re: Eel DNA (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Kiddush HaShem, Defying Their Expectations and Demands (Zev Sero)

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 02:58:10AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Once it was revealed that the true reason for celebrating the day is
> Hilula deR"Shimon, the whole story changes...

I wonder when this happened. In fact, I wonder about the accuracy of
the folk history of Lag baOmer altogether.

The SA (OC 493:2) holds that the haircutting part of the aveilus
is until the morning of day 34. The se'if opens with "nohagim shelo
lehistaper ad 33", meaning ad ve'ad bikhlal, which implies that 493:1's
parallel language of not getting married "ad Lag laOmer" is also ad ve'd
bikhlal. And so is the practice among Sephardim.

So here we have one of the mequbalim of Tzefat who didn't believe Lag
baOmer (or leshitaso: Lag laOmer) is a holiday in its own right, or even
that it was after the yemei eivel.

And as we already discussed, the Seforim blog notes
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2011/05/printing-mistake-and-myste
rious-origins.html
that until the 1785 edition of the Peri Eitz Chaim, the Ari was quoted
as saying that it was a day of nechamah, "vehata'am shameich Rashbi
beyom Lag baOmer ki hu mi talmidei R' Aqiva". "Sameach" with a ches,
not "shemeis". And this is the version in the Shaar haKavanot (also
by RCVital) in the 1752 edition.

It's still something for Rashbi, a day of his simchah that his rebbe's
talmidim stopped dying. But given the SA, it couldn't have been seen by
Mequbalei Tzefat as anything significant ledoros.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 33rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
Fax: (270) 514-1507               submission to truth, and what results?

Doron writes

<<In terms of the general approach regarding kullos to run a state, I would
think the opposite - we would only permit absolutely vital functions and
would thus rely on kullos as necessary, just as in the IDF.>>

The question is what is "vital" and what kulos. Is the police, fire
department vital?
What about hospitals? Writing information today is an important part of
hospital care.
Is disappearing ink a kulah? (its a machloket how long the ink needs to
last to be a Torah
obligation - if one takes the most machmir shitah this device doesnt help)
Assuming that electricity is derabban (generally accepted except for CI)
are kavod habriot, tzaar baale chaim, 2 derabban for mitzvah etc. kulot?

BTW Doron seems to accept the IDF as a neccessity. Others are not that
"mekil".
One question is turning on search lights in an army base in the middle of
the country.
It is not feasible to keep these lights on for 24 hours. Hence, during the
night they are turned
on periodically to search for possible intruders. Is this pikuach nefesh?
There are many
other standard military tactics that if one wants one could be "machmir"
and say they are nor needed.

Again much of the discussion started from a shiur I heard from the rav of
Keren BeYavneh.
They are careful there that all work be done by Jews and not Arabs. Among
their other activities they run a large milking operation. If a cow is not
milked every day it undegoes much pain. Today almost everything is
automated through computers. He discussed cases where the computer system
fails.

In spite of what Zev writes if one speaks to people in the field it is
impossible to run the police,
fire department, hospitals and other emrgency units based on goyim for a
whole host of reasons.
It is easy to sit outside of EY and say "why not?" when one doesnt have the
responsibility of actually running these organizations.
Again running a country is not the same as running a shtetl.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130428/e36dccda/attachment-0001.htm>

This morning there was a fellow who davened in the minyan that I 
daven who wore two pair of Tefillen (I presume Rashi and Rabeinu 
Tam.)  simultaneously during the davening.  I have seen him do this 
before when he is in the US.  I am told he lives in EY.

In light of (from http://tinyurl.com/cxdg7bk)

The Shulchan Aruch[15] rules that one is only required to concern 
himself with wearing Tefillin according to Rashi's view. 
Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch recommends that "God fearing 
individuals" be sure to wear the Tefillin of Rabbeinu Tam as 
well.[16] One who is not known to be especially meticulous in the 
performance of mitzvot should not wear Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin in 
public, unless one finds himself in a community where the custom is 
for all to do so.[17]

[15] Rambam Tefillin 1:1,3:5, O.C. 32:1,34:1
[16] Tur O.C. 34, O.C. 34:2, Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:13, 4:9
[17] O.C. 34:3

And from http://tinyurl.com/c9rb758

It should also be noted that the Taz also states that it is unclear 
if the halakhah actually accepts the view that "there is room on the 
head to place two tefilin", and that the Magen Avraham (301:54) 
writes that in present times we are not sufficiently expert to know 
where the two boxes would fit. (See also Resp. Hit'or'rut Teshuvah, 
O.C. 12-13).

In light of this,  is what this person does (in public) "appropriate"?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130428/1b4f1b0f/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 

RSaul Newman:
 
<< For another perspective on the KASHURS issue, Brooklyn Orthodox Rabbi
 Yosef Yitzchok Serebryanski said even though a small amount of a
 non-kosher food doesn?t usually render a food non-kosher, it does
 when it becomes an/intrinsic part/ of the food.>>

RZev Sero:

<Interesting theory, but 1) where's a source for it, and 2) there is not
a small amount of issur, there issur at all, so bittul is irrelevant.
Suppose instead of splicing a few eel genes into the salmon DNA, we were
to splice just a few salmon genes into an eel's DNA, to produce an eel
with fins and scales.  Even if its genome were 99% eel and only 1% salmon,
and thus no chance of bittul at all, it would still be kosher.>

     Apparently, Rabbi Serebryanski is comparing the splicing of the eel
     genes to that of davar hama'amid, which does not become bateil because
     its influence persists despite its small percentage in the mixture.

     I assume point 2) of R. Zev's remarks were meant to read "there is not
     a small amount of issur, there is no issur at all."  If I understand
     his argument correctly, there is no issur because the resulting fish
     has fins and scales.  While his argument may be valid, his proof from
     an eel with salmon DNA spliced in to produce an eel with fins and
     scales, is flawed. Such a fish would be prohibited despite its fins
     and scales, as in the case of chamor sheyalda para, which Is
     prohibited because of yotzei min hatamei.


RSN, further quoting RYYS: <<It is prohibited to genetically engineer salmon with eel genes
because such boundary crossing is prohibited by the Creator. Using
genetic engineering to cross boundaries set up by the Creator creates
an imbalance and distortion, disrupting a person's connection with
the Creator.>>

RZS:<This supposed prohibition cannot be found anywhere in the Torah.
If the Creator objected to it, He could prohibit it either in the Torah
or in the laws of nature.  If something is possible then by definition
it's natural, part of Hashem's creation, and if He didn't say not to do
it then we have no reason to suppose He doesn't want it.>

     Apparently, RYYS considers genetic engineering to be animal kilayim,
     in essence forming a new species by combining two existing ones.  If
     so, the analogy fails on two grounds: (a) the prohibition is
     specifically the act of breeding, and as noted by RZS, splicing is
     nowhere prohibited in the Torah; and b) even if it were assur to
     splice, the resulting hybrid is not assur as a result of "crossing the
     boundaries."  E.g., one may not cross a sheep with a goat, but the
     resulting animal is kosher.

 EMT    

On 27/04/2013 9:35 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> Although the Shaarei Teshuvah brings the Mor U'ketziah that is meikil with
the Sefirah strictures on the night of Lag B'omer, the Mishneh Berurah
himself (who cites him in the Shaar HaTziyun) and many others require
aveilus until the morning of the 33^rd , as Miktzas Hayom K'kulo. Yet I see
that the minhag - based on the proliferation of bonfires and musical
accompaniment - seems to be like the Mor U'ketziah. Does anyone have an
explanation as to why the "olam" is meikil tonight?

R'ZS:
While people thought it was just the end of aveilus, then 1) when you get up
from shiva you do so in the morning, not at night; and 2) when you get up
from shiva you don't start dancing and singing.  The end of aveilus is not a
simcha.   So it's not a yomtov, the restrictions are relaxed only in the
morning after miktzas hayom has passed, and there's tachnun in mincha of the
previous day.

Once it was revealed that the true reason for celebrating the day is Hilula
deR"Shimon, the whole story changes.  Now that we know this we understand
that it's a yomtov, and like any yomtov it starts on the previous evening,
and there's no tachanun in the previous mincha.
-------------------


who hold you need to wait until the daytime, this is so even though we don't
say tachanun at Minchah of the 32nd. 
Also, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav brings down the minhag you cite, but clearly
doesn't subscribe to it and requires waiting until the morning (493:5).

KT,
MYG

On 27/04/2013 9:35 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> Although the Shaarei Teshuvah brings the Mor U?ketziah that is meikil with
the Sefirah strictures on the night of Lag B?omer, the Mishneh Berurah
himself (who cites him in the Shaar HaTziyun) and many others require
aveilus until the morning of the 33^rd , as Miktzas Hayom K?kulo. Yet I see
that the minhag ? based on the proliferation of bonfires and musical
accompaniment ? seems to be like the Mor U?ketziah. Does anyone have an
explanation as to why the ?olam? is meikil tonight?

..R Reisman echos your concerns

Rabbi Reisman - Parshas Emor 5773
1. I would like to mention two Divrei Halacha in regards to Lag B'omer.
First of all, because Lag B'omer falls on Sunday the Rama brings the custom
of Ashkenazim that those of us who would normally shave or take a haircut on
Sunday may do so and it seems that it is even preferable to do so on Erev
Shabbos. 
 
A second Halacha is regarding music and dancing on Motzoei Shabbos the night
of Lag B'omer. According to our Minhag to keep Sefira until Lag B'omer,
music and dancing is still Assur on Motzoei Shabbos. The frequent places
where they have bonfires with music and dancing is not like the Rama. The
Rama says that it is still Assur on the night of Lag B'omer. If you will ask
so why do people do it? Those Chassidim who keep the Minhag Arizal and they
keep the Chumros of Sefira all the way until Shavuos, for them the entire
Lag B'omer is Muttar and even the night of Lag B'omer is Muttar, because
they are keeping 33 days without Lag B'omer. For them music is Muttar. On
the contrary, those that keep the Minhag Arizal, are not allowed to have
music and dancing on Lamed Daled B'omer which means Sunday night. If they
want to have a night celebration it must be on Motzoei Shabbos. For those of
us who keep Sefirah only until Lag B'omer, which is the prevalent Minhag
certainly among Ashkenazim, we keep Sefirah until Lag B'omer and after that
we hold that music, haircuts, and weddings are Muttar, we are prohibited
from music and dancing the night of Lag B'omer that is on Motzoei Shabbos.
We are permitted on Sunday night. This is a mistake that many people make.
They go Motzoei Shabbos to music and dancing and then they are Maikil with
music and dancing after Lag B'omer as well which is a Tarti D'sasri. You
have to choose one or the other.

mc

R' Meir Rabi:
A qualified medical doctor, who was offered a job and although Halacha did
not require a Mezuzah, he insisted that a Mezuzah be affixed to his office
door or would otherwise not accept the job.

Is this a Kiddush HaShem?
--------------------------------



KT,
MYG

On 28/04/2013 1:06 AM, Meir Rabi wrote:
> A qualified medical doctor, who was offered a job and although
> Halacha did not require a Mezuzah, he insisted that a Mezuzah be
> affixed to his office door or would otherwise not accept the job.
>
> Is this a Kiddush HaShem?

Clearly a kiddush haShem.  What's the sevara otherwise?  (This applies
whether or not he knew that it's not required.)

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

    Has anyone seen a halakhic discussion of the ramifications, if any, of
    a parent telling their child that they do not have to observe the laws
    of "Shana" for them - that shloshim is enough.  Perhaps the child is
    bound to listen especially if the stringency of Shana stems from Kibud
    Av ve-Em. Here the parent has been explicitly  Mohel on their kavod.  
    Or perhaps not mourning would be a form of Bizayyon?
    This certainly sounds like something that has been asked before, but I'm looking for mekorot/sources.
            Thanks
                    Aryeh

--------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor
   of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il
Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer
Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053
Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834
E-mail (home): Frim...@zahav.net.il
Cellphone: 972-54-7540761
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130429/29f3f921/attachment-0001.htm>

What does it take to make something into "Minhag Yisrael"? If a significant
percentage of religious Jews do something on a particular date with no
"real" reason for a number of years, when would that have the ability to
make doing so mandatory?

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130428/0706c0cf/attachment-0001.htm>

On 28/04/2013 7:07 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> This morning there was a fellow who davened in the minyan that I
> daven who wore two pair of Tefillen (I presume Rashi and Rabeinu
> Tam.) simultaneously during the davening.  I have seen him do this
> before when he is in the US.  I am told he lives in EY.

This is the standard minhag in many Sefaradi communities.


>  In light of this,  is what this person does (in public) "appropriate"?

Nowadays when we're used to seeing all sorts of different minhagim, and are
much more aware of how diverse Jewish practice is, I don't think it's
inappropriate.  He's not making a show of being special, he's just doing
as he was brought up to do and as everyone in his community does, and he
expects that everyone will understand that, just as they understand his
different accent and other visible signs of his different origin.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:55:43PM +0300, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
: Has anyone seen a halakhic discussion of the ramifications, if any, of
: a parent telling their child that they do not have to observe the laws
: of "Shana" for them - that shloshim is enough. Perhaps the child is
: bound to listen especially if the stringency of Shana stems from Kibud
: Av ve-Em. Here the parent has been explicitly Mohel on their kavod.
: Or perhaps not mourning would be a form of Bizayyon?

: This certainly sounds like something that has been asked before,
: but I'm looking for mekorot/sources.

You are right on both counts. It has, but with no hard meqoros.

There is a front-end to Google for searching the archive at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah .

I searched for "aveilus year" (without the quotes) and it turned up
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=A#AVEILUS

OTOH, R/Prof Levine reported in that thread:
> I recall hearing the following from Rav P. M. Teitz, ZT'L. He asked, 
> "Why is it that the aveilus for a parent is a year whereas that for a 
> child is only one month? After all, people are almost always more 
> greatly affected by the loss of a child." He replied (and here I am 
> paraphrasing) , "Everyone knows that his parents are going to pass 
> away. This is the way of the world. Therefore, there may be a 
> tendency for a child to 'downplay' the loss of a parent. Hence, the 
> period of mourning is a year, so that the child does not 'forget.'. 
> However, for a child there is never any 'downplaying' of the loss. 
> Only a month is needed."

And Cantor Wolberg repeated (source unnamed) at the top of the thread:
>: When parents loses a child they will be mourning the rest of their
>: lives, therefore, in order not to exacerbate it, halacha has
>: compassionately made the (external) aveilus for only 30 days....

Which would also imply that for a child the aveilus would "naturally"
be a year.

And on the more recent thread
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=S#SPOUSE%20VS%20PA
RENT
RMFelstein wrote:
> I have heard that the reason is that a parent is the only individual that
> can never be replaced (whereas a spouse or a child can be).

(Whereas my reply began "WADR to the author of Iyov, no they can't.
The role can be filled again, but the person could never be replaced.")

RJR gives a different sevara besheim RYBS:
> I think R'YBS gave the loss of the link in the mesorah chain.

But REMT wrote:
> These answers all were given at a nichum aveilim visit to RYBS, in the
> year when he had three losses -- mother, brother and wife -- in six
> months. The question came up while my father and Rav Hutner were there.
> Rav Hutner gave the mesora-chain answer. (His wording was that when
> a father passes away, the son is one generation farther from Sinai.)
> My father's answer was that parents can have more than one child, while
> a child has only one of each parent. RYBS gave the answer of the extra
> months being for kibbud av va'eim.

And RDBeckerman fdound the story in print at
> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51117&;;st=&pgnum=209

R' Eli Turkel recalled RMF using the "kibud av va'eim" sevara lehalakhah:
> I believe that RMF also held that the 12 months is from kibud av va-em.
> From memory, the question was about a woman who's parent had passed away
> and during the year her husband was being honored at a fancy dinner and the
> question was whether she could attend. RMF answered that a wife's
> obligations to her husband overrides kibud av va-em. Since, aveilut of the
> 12 months was an instance of kibud av ve-am therefore, honoring her husband
> overcomes the aveilut.

And RSMashbaum also attributes it to the IM:
> RMF writes in IM that, since the laws of inheritance are based on the
> principle "hakarov, karov kodem", the fact that one's children inherit
> him even if his parents are alive, shows that one's closest relatives
> are his children, not his parents. Thus aveilut yud bet chodesh is not
> based on the degree of closeness of the deceased to the mourner. Rather,
> R. Moshe writes, aveilut yud bet chodesh is a din in kibbud av v'am.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 34th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  and maintain a stable relationship?

There are actually two people who daven in the same minyan as me within
one table's distance (how's that for coincidence) who do the same.
However, both are careful to put them on as inobtrusively as possible
and to keep the back (presumably R"T) or both shel rosh covered by a
yarmulka or talis. I have seen the same practice done by others (I
think its an Iraqi practice) who also do it as much betzin'ah as possible.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:07:37 -0400

> This morning there was a fellow who davened in the minyan that I
> daven who wore two pair of Tefillen (I presume Rashi and Rabeinu Tam.)
> simultaneously during the davening. I have seen him do this before when
> he is in the US. I am told he lives in EY.

On 28/04/2013 3:09 PM, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
> I assume point 2) of R. Zev's remarks were meant to read "there is
> not a small amount of issur, there is no issur at all."  If I
> understand his argument correctly, there is no issur because the
> resulting fish has fins and scales.  While his argument may be valid,
> his proof from an eel with salmon DNA spliced in to produce an eel
> with fins and scales, is flawed. Such a fish would be prohibited
> despite its fins and scales, as in the case of chamor sheyalda para,
> which Is prohibited because of yotzei min hatamei.

What about the next generation?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 28/04/2013 11:45 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> R' Meir Rabi:

>> A qualified medical doctor, who was offered a job and although Halacha did
>> not require a Mezuzah, he insisted that a Mezuzah be affixed to his office
>> door or would otherwise not accept the job.
>>
>> Is this a Kiddush HaShem?

> It's Bal Tosif.

How so?  Which mitzvah is he adding to?  Not that of mezuzah.  Bal Tosif is
putting two mezuzos on the same door, or three parshios in the same mezuzah,
not putting a mezuzah on a door that isn't obligated.  It's clearly
established in the gemara that putting a mezuzah even on a hotel room that
one is only occupying for a night provides protection, which certainly means
that it's not an avera, and surely means that is a mitzvah.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 78
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)