Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 82

Fri, 03 May 2013

• 1. Re: V'el bnei yisrael tomar (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Lag B'omer (Zev Sero)
• 3. Sheilos/Teshuvos Regarding Lag BaOmer (Prof. Levine)
• 4. More from the Evolution vs Creationism front (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Wearing Two Pair of Tefillen at the Same Time (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Lag Baomer (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Wearing Two Pair of Tefillen at the Same Time (Poppers, Michael)
• 8. Re: Lag Baomer (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: Minhag Yisrael (Micha Berger)
• 10. Loeg Larash in front of a non-metzuveh? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Insights Into Halacha: A Halachic Analysis of the Recent Meat Scandal Ruling (Prof. Levine)
• 12. doresh el hameisim (M Cohen)
• 13. Re: doresh el hameisim (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: doresh el hameisim (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag BaOmer (Heather Luntz)

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:06:14AM -0400, Isaac Kotlicky wrote:
: And lest we forget - the molech process is ALSO the source of the myth of
: Achilles...

Interesting, and something I'd like to hear more about.

However, Molekh worship itself, involved human sacrifice -- lisrof es
beneheihem ve'es benoseihem ba'eish" (Yirmiyahu 7:35). That's the opinion
of Yalqut Shim'oni (Yirm' 247 277, who metions cooking them in a brass
bull), Rashi. Radaq, Metzudas Tzion. Not the Rambam, though, who says it was
propitiatory passing over a fire.

Archeologically, even as late as Carthage (after the Kenaanim left EY),
they mention the sacrifice described in the Yalqut, albeit to Kronos,
not Molekh.

Which is why I thought the context reinforced RLK's question of why HQBH
would use "Ve'el BY tomar" rather than "tagid".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

On 30/04/2013 12:16 PM, Ezra Chwat wrote:
> ... Pri Etz Chaim MSS confirm that yes, it is RShBY's yartzeit after all"
>
> But even so, for the record, there are three manuscripts of Pri Etz Haim
> (Editor R'M Poppers). All Ashkenazi:
>
>   Oxford mss 1760: "simhat"; Jerusalem NLI 4?6720 (dated 1651): "smh'
>   (apostrophy)"; Oxford 1700 (dated 1712): "sm-(apostrophe)". From here
>   to print (1782) "Shemet" in clear disagreement with the first half of
>   the sentence. The chronological sequence is clear. Eleven Roman legions
>   couldn't execute Rashbi, but a printer did so with one errant stroke,
>   and of all irony, on the date of his Hillula!!.

You're focusing only on that word, but that is not the only relevant word
in the passage.  There's also the second word, which could be "shemeis",
"shemeisu", etc.  In case you missed it, here's the link I posted earlier:
http://shturem.net/index.php?section=news&;id=62737

-- 
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

My friend Reb Mordechai Hager  has a close relationship with R. Chaim 
Kanievsky.   Recently he sent him some questions about Lag BaOmer and 
going to 
Meron.  See 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/sheilos_teshuvos_lag_ba_omer.pdf

for R. Kanievsky's responses.  Note the first question and answer!   YL

Two links that have been sitting among the too-many tabs on my browser.
(Literally: TooManyTabs is a chrome plugin I use for tabs I don't expect
to revisit for a while, but too urgent for just "Bookmarks".)

Both point to the idea that those who assert an evolutionary start to
life, or at least an unguided random evolution, aren't done with their
theory yet.

1- http://j.mp/15XV5nZ or
http://www.slashgear.com/europes-genes-revea
l-mysterious-genetic-turnover-4500-years-ago-24279138/

    Europe's genes reveal mysterious "genetic turnover" 4,500 years ago
    Chris Davies, Apr 24th 2013

    The origins of early Homo Sapiens in Europe have been further revealed
    in new DNA exploration of skeletal remains, exposing a sudden "genetic
    turnover" roughly 4,500 years ago that indicates a massive population
    change. Previously, scientists had believed European settlers had
    arrived roughly 7,500 years ago and modern Europeans descended from
    them; however, research led by the University of Adelaide indicates
    a mysterious event more than four millennia ago saw that group wiped
    out and replaced with the true European ancestors, origins unknown.

    "The population moves in around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, but where
    it came from remains a mystery" director of the Australian Centre
    for Ancient DNA, Alan Cooper, said of the findings, published in
    Nature Communications this week. "We can't see anything like it in
    the areas surrounding Europe."

    The study used extracted mitochondrial DNA from 39 skeletons that
    had been found in central Germany and Italy...

2- http://www.technologyreview.com/view/513781/moores-law-and-the-or
igin-of-life

Original paper:
    Life Before Earth
    Alexei A. Sharov, Richard Gordon
    (Submitted on 28 Mar 2013)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381

MIT Technology Review:
    The Physics arXiv Blog
    April 15, 2013

    Moore's Law and the Origin of Life

    As life has evolved, its complexity has increased exponentially,
    just like Moore's law. Now geneticists have extrapolated this trend
    backwards and found that by this measure, life is older than the
    Earth itself.

    Here's an interesting idea. Moore's Law states that the number
    of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years
    or so. That has produced an exponential increase in the number of
    transistors on microchips and continues to do so.

    But if an observer today was to measure this rate of increase,
    it would be straightforward to extrapolate backwards and work out
    when the number of transistors on a chip was zero. In other words,
    the date when microchips were first developed in the 1960s.

    A similar process works with scientific publications. Between 1990
    and 1960, they doubled in number every 15 years or so. Extrapolating
    this backwards gives the origin of scientific publication as 1710,
    about the time of Isaac Newton.

    Today, Alexei Sharov at the National Institute on Ageing in Baltimore
    and his mate Richard Gordon at the Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory
    in Florida, have taken a similar to complexity and life. ...

    Sharov and Gordon say that the evidence by this measure is
    clear. "Linear regression of genetic complexity (on a log scale)
    extrapolated back to just one base pair suggests the time of the
    origin of life = 9.7 +/- 2.5 billion years ago," they say.

    And since the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, that raises a
    whole series of other questions. Not least of these is how and where
    did life begin.

    Of course, there are many points to debate in this analysis. The
    nature of evolution is filled with subtleties that most biologists
    would agree we do not yet fully understand.

    ...

    There's no question that this is a controversial idea that will
    ruffle more than a few feathers amongst evolutionary theorists.

    But it is also provocative, interesting and exciting. All the more
    reason to debate it in detail.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

The second pair is small and fits on easily.

Ben

On 4/30/2013 9:43 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> /IIRC the Ben Ish Chai wrote to put both pairs on at once./
>
> First of all, how in the world can that be accomplished physically 
> speaking?
> And even if it could, wouldn't it appear inappropriate?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130501/2740141b/attachment-0001.htm>

Sawe an article over shabbat that the (DL) rabbi said that he insists that
in his yishuv everyone keep the same minhag of Omer to limit problems.

RMF seems to be talking about New York City. Does it apply to chassidic
courts where everyone keeps the same minhag but one wants to attend the
wedding of a sefardi with a different minhag?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130501/c6556d2c/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V31n81, R'Micha wrote:
> RDZFeldman writes <http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/713274>...:
>> The Sanzer Rebbe (Resp. Divrei Chaim, II, O.C. 6) dealt with the
>> question of whether it is appropriate to use a mirror to ascertain
>> that one's tefilin are properly positioned. (The question is
>> predicated on the assumption that men should not use mirrors, out
>> of concern for "beged ishah", as stated in Y.D. 156:2; however,
>> see Rama, who notes that in societies in which men also use
>> mirrors, it is permissible to do so). He responded that there is
>> no need to use a mirror for this purpose, in light of the
>> statement of the Talmud (Eiruvin 95b) "there is room on the head
>> to place two tefilin". If this is the case, that there is twice as
>> much room as is necessary, it would certainly be possible to place
>> one tefilin box within the appropriate parameters without use of a
>> mirror.
>> His assumption is that the Talmud's statement is a reference to
>> placing two boxes side by side. It can be argued, however, that
>> the Talmud only referred to placing two boxes one on top of the
>> other; going across, however, the space is more limited, as
>> indicated by the Torah's requirement of "between your eyes"....
>> << <
Wouldn't one be preferring one t'filah shel rosh over another if one
stacked them (or, for that matter, if one placed one behind the other [as
was noted earlier in R'Micha's post as seen by RGS])?  The "assumption" of
the Divrei Chayyim may be based on not preferring one to the other by
placing them side-by-side on the same X-axis. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

Why dafka sefirat ha-omer minhagim?

Ben

On 5/1/2013 9:48 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Sawe an article over shabbat that the (DL) rabbi said that he insists 
> that in his yishuv everyone keep the same minhag of Omer to limit 
> problems.
>
> RMF seems to be talking about New York City. Does it apply to 
> chassidic courts where everyone keeps the same minhag but one wants to 
> attend the wedding of a sefardi with a different minhag?

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:44:25PM +0300, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: 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?

Or perhaps it's not boolean -- the more people over the longer history,
the more authority. Then a poseiq has to weigh this authority against
other sources of halachic authority -- who posed each opinion, the
solidity of their logic (in the poseiq's opinion) copared to the others,
what the sho'el is giving up, what they are capable of, etc... And then
there are aggadic concerns, as when worried that tefillin on ch"m is
qotzeitz bintios....

But the questtion presumes a line, that pesaq is algorithmic and can
be reduces to boolean (yes-no) if-then rules. In practice, pesaq is an
art that requires people to balance disparate magnitudes, weighing pros
vs cons of different types.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 36th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 being a stable and reliable partner?

Related to the tangent of the eel DNA thread about whether benei Noach
are prohibited from cross-breeding...

The woman who works in the cubical next to mine received a call Wed
morning. Before the call, she was having a typical day of work. But
then, out of the blue, she learns that her 21 yr old son, someone
everyone thought was healthy, did not wake up that morning. It's kind
of unsettling thing to watch, how a person's world can unravel with no
warning in a matter of minutes.

Today I went to the visitation. Before entering the funeral home, I tucked
in my tzitzis. Seeing myself run through the habit made me wonder...

Is there lo'eg larash in my wearing my tzitzis out on such an occasion
(the co worker and her son are nakhriim)?

First I thought: Well, the meis wasn't mechuyav in tzitzis, so no.

But then I thought: Neither would be a Bas Yisrael, and we tuck in our
tzitzis then.

Which then led to wondering how nakhriim relate to the majority of the
613. Aside from singled out mitzvos where Chazal discuss a specific
issur in their pursuing them: talmud Torah, Shabbos, most qorbanos,
others I'm unaware of.

Does a nakhri who wears tzitzis any different than a bas yisrael who
fulfills a mitzvah asei shehazman gerama? Does it make a difference
whether they proclaimed themselves geirei toshav before a beis din?
Are there gradations, or are all instances of eino metzuveh ve'oseh
identical?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 36th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 being a stable and reliable partner?

 From http://tinyurl.com/ctcjgx7
[R' Yehudah Spitz on ohr.edu, dated 27-Apr-2013. -micha]

The recent Erev Pesach Meat Scandal of 2013 shocked the Jewish world.
Featuring a private investigator, hidden cameras, and online videos,
this shameful episode had all the makings of a spy novel. One of the
main suppliers of kosher meat for one of the largest metropolitan
Jewish areas was caught bringing unsupervised packages of meat and/
or poultry into his store at a time when he knew that the mashgiach was
not around. Although consumers might take some solace in the fact that
it was not horse meat they bought, and thus being a step up on much of
Europe[1], nevertheless, the thought that they might have unwittingly
and unknowingly eaten non-kosher meat is a tough pill to swallow.

Unfortunately, such stories have been around for a long time. Over a
century ago, the famed Ridbaz, Rav Yosef Dovid Willovsky zt"l, best known
for his seminal commentaries on the Talmud Yerushalmi, was chased out of
Chicago (on Shabbos yet!) for his attempts to clean up the prevalent fraud
perpetrated in the name of "Kosher Meat"[2]. Likewise, Rav Yaakov Joseph
zt"l (R.J.J.), New York's first and only Chief Rabbi, after being publicly
shamed and discredited by the unlearned masses for attempting a similar
kashrus clean up in New York, was forced into early retirement. Even so,
every time another scandal occurs, world Jewry collectively cringes.

Yet, with this recent one, many were puzzled by the ruling that was
publicized in the aftermath of the scandal by the Rabbonim of the
certifying kashrus agency after consulting with Rav Yisroel Belsky
shlit"a, Rosh Yeshiva of Torah V'Daas and posek for the OU. The Rabbonim
ruled that all meat that was bought in the store before 3 P.M.on that day
(Erev Pesach) was considered kosher; however any meats purchased after
that time was / would be considered non-kosher.

This fascinating psak was the subject of much discussion and was
even featured in a Question and Answer article in a major Jewish
publication[3]. The much discussed question was where the 'magical number'
3 o'clock came from. Furthermore, if the basis of the hetter permitting
the meat purchased before that time was due to 'rov', a simple majority
rule, as the owner was caught bringing in 8 boxes of unsupervised meat
(and/ or poultry) while at the same time many other pallets of supervised
meat were coming in (approximately 300) boxes[4], shouldn't all the meat
be permitted? Why the need for the cut-off time?

See the above URL for more. YL

The machlokes if one may pray to the dead is well known (see Artscroll quote
below)

 

My question is simply - according to those who are machmir, how do they
explain the common custom at the funeral of a spouse to request mechilah
from the spouse.

 

They are clearly not addressing HKBH.  Why isn't this a problem?

 

The following is taken from the book, "Mourning in Halacha" by Artscroll.

When one prays at the graves of one's parents, forefathers, and relatives,
or at other graves, one should not direct their prayers to the deceased, nor
request anything from them. One should pray only to the Holy One, Blessed is
He. One should not direct one's efforts towards the deceased, so that one
will not be in the category of those who seek favors from the dead (doresh
el hameisim).

When one prays at the graves of tzaddikim, one should request of Hashem,
Blessed is He, that He have mercy upon oneself through the merit of the
righteous ones who dwell in the dust. **

** Ba'er Heitev (581: ##17) However, Gesher HaChaim writes: "But many permit
addressing the deceased and saying to him: 'Be our representative and pray
for us to Hashem, Blessed is He." Since one asks the deceased to pray to
Hashem, Blessed is He, this is not considered directing one's efforts
towards the deceased himself. It is like asking a living tzaddik to pray for
one." And see responsa Maharam Shick (Orach Chaim #293).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130502/6f19f86f/attachment-0001.htm>

My question is simply - according to those who are machmir, how do they
explain the common custom at the funeral of a spouse to request mechilah
from the spouse.

They are clearly not addressing HKBH.  Why isn't this a problem?

** Ba'er Heitev (581: ##17) However, Gesher HaChaim writes: "But many
permit addressing the deceased and saying to him: 'Be our representative
and pray for us to Hashem, Blessed is He." Since one asks the deceased to
pray to Hashem, Blessed is He, this is not considered directing one's
efforts towards the deceased himself. It is like asking a living tzaddik to
pray for one." And see responsa Maharam Shick (Orach Chaim #293).
====================================================================
I think the larger question is what does it mean for one who is no longer
in this world to pray or to grant mechilah.  Is there some type of bechirah
chofshit that survives death? If so, why is there no reward/punishment for
decisions made in the olam haemet?
One might understand it as really focused on those in the olam haasiah,
they must still seek mechila, they must still pray to HKB"H and draw
strength from those no longer here - but it doesn't seem that's what the
footnote is thinking
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/20130502/a76656f9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/05/2013 2:12 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> I think the larger question is what does it mean for one who is no
> longer in this world to pray or to grant mechilah. Is there some type
> of bechirah chofshit that survives death?

Yes, absolutely.  Why would you think otherwise?


> If so, why is there no reward/punishment for decisions made in the
> olam haemet?

Who said there isn't?  On the contrary, Navoth was punished for his
eagerness to act as Hashem's agent to punish Ach'av.


Rabbi Arthur Scroll wrote:
> ** Ba'er Heitev (581: ##17) However, Gesher HaChaim writes: "But many
> permit addressing the deceased and saying to him: 'Be our
> representative and pray for us to Hashem, Blessed is He." Since one
> asks the deceased to pray to Hashem, Blessed is He, this is not
> considered directing one's efforts towards the deceased himself. It
> is like asking a living tzaddik to pray for one." And see responsa
> Maharam Shick (Orach Chaim #293).

The Zohar says explicitly that "vedoresh el hameisim" refers to resha'im,
who are considered meisim even when they're alive, and not to tzadikim.
Tzadikim are "hameisim shekvar meisu", i.e. they are "dead" only in the
sense that they are people who have died, but it's not their description.
(This foreshadows current PC language which does not allow labelling anyone,
e.g. one must not say that someone is "blind" but only that he "has
blindness", because "blind" is not who he is.  Here we see the Zohar using
the same thinking.)


-- 
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

RMB writes:

>WADR to RSM, bonfires aren't un-Jewish, non-Jewish or Jewish, they are
>primal. They instigate an emotional response for reasons universal to
>all humans. It's like discussing the origins of making a big meal to
>celebrate a happy occasions.

Weel I have to say that the likenesses to Bethane are a bit uncanny.  I know
you don't live in a Celtic neck of the woods, and have never seen it, but if
you ever see the Scots in full flow celebrating Bethane (Mayday) you really
do start to wonder (especially given the proximity this year, Bethane was
two days after Lag B'Omer). The Celts are one of the few groups that retain
the old pagan timetable.  And Bethan in late April early May was associated
with fire.  (Bethane it is supposed to be the celebration of the day exactly
half way between the equinox and the summer solstice).

>Are we also going to do away with kumzitzin, because they too are not
mitzvos or ancient minhagim?

But we don't davka do kumzitzin right around the time of a known pagan
festival involving kumzitzin.  That I thought at root was RSM's point (along
with the detailed explanation of how a pagan festival best known in northern
Europe appears to have migrated down to the East and then back again).  But
once you make the link to Bethane, ie the date half way between the equinox
and the summer solstice, it becomes hard to believe that this was not a much
more widespread date at one point, when midsummer and midwinter and the
equinoxes were the defining points in the pagan calendar.  And once there is
no logical reason for davka having a bonfire at this time of year, other
than historically that the pagans did it, I think you really do start
tripping the Meharik as quoted in the Rema in Yoreh Deah siman 178 si'if 1 -
even though, he also brings the Ran there that burning in relation to kings
is not considered darchei emori which perhaps you might also say is because
it is primal, but the Taz gives the reason as because of kavod, so nobody
else should use their things.  I would be surprised if a purely primal
answer would have satisfied.

>:-)BBii!
>-Micha

Regards

Chana



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


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 82
**************************************

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.)