Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 138

Wed, 31 Jul 2013

• 1. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (Saul Guberman)
• 6. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (Gershon Dubin)
• 7. re which wine is better? (martin brody)
• 8. Re: Is Kabbalah Heresy? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: garlic on Pesach (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Grape Juice (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA - Esrog problem? (Joe Slater)
• 12. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (Eitan Levy)
• 13. Re: Geocentrism (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: Geocentrism (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Geocentrism (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Geocentrism (David Riceman)
• 17. non kosher phone (Eli Turkel)

On 29/07/2013 10:16 AM, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>
>   Rabbi: No need to return lost smartphone
>
> *Halachic ruling issued by Rabbi Karelitz says because advanced cellular phone is 'not kosher,' there is no obligation to give it back to its owner*
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4396770,00.html
> Are there categories of items that need not be returned outside of our
> Eilu Metzios memories?  Or is this a whole new Halachic construct?

There's nothing new about this.   Given the premise that these phones are
assur to have, then it follows that one not only needn't return them but one
*may* not do so.

-- 
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

R' Gershon Dubin asked:

> Rabbi: No need to return lost smartphone  Halachic ruling issued
> by Rabbi Karelitz says because advanced cellular phone is 'not
> kosher,' there is no obligation to give it back to its owner 
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4396770,00.html
> Are there categories of items that need not be returned outside
> of our Eilu Metzios memories?  Or is this a whole new Halachic
> construct?

It sounds reasonable to me, that if a Jew lost an object, and the only or
main function of that object was to do aveiros, then returning that object
would be a violation of Michshol.

Let's take a simpler example: I find a container of food, clearly marked
with the name of the non-kosher restaurant that it came from - perhaps it
was take-out that got lost, or a delivery that didn't arrive. It even has
the name and address of the Jew who would eat it, so one cannot claim that
it was unmarked or that yiush of some other form applies. If it were
kosher, there'd certainly be an obligation to return it.

My first inclination is to say that this is Michshol, because there's no
possible way for him to eat THIS food unless I return it. Or perhaps one
can say that it is only Mesayaya, because even without this food, he'll eat
other treif instead. But even so, if the mitzva of Hashavas Aveida doesn't
apply where it would be below my dignity to return it, I'd guess that it
certainly doesn't apply in cases like this.

HOWEVER I am only responding to RGD's questions of
> Are there categories of items that need not be returned outside
> of our Eilu Metzios memories?  Or is this a whole new Halachic
> construct?

I am *not* convinced that a smartphone is in the same category as tarfus. Rav Karelitz, on the other hand, does seem to hold that way.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
One Weird Trick
Could add $1,000s to Your Social Security Checks! See if you Qualify&#8230
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51f6aa418e2a72a414e05st01vuc

But why not dan l'kaf tzchut and assume that said Yid had no intention 
of eating it? He was ordering it for his non-Jewish friend or was going 
to give it to his dog (of course I am assuming that this particular 
piece of trief is not assur b'ha'na'ah).

Similarly with the Smartphone, OK, some say that it assur but why not 
return it so that the Jew can sell it or give it away?

Ben

On 7/29/2013 8:44 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> Let's take a simpler example: I find a container of food, clearly
> marked with the name of the non-kosher restaurant that it came from -
> perhaps it was take-out that got lost, or a delivery that didn't
> arrive. It even has the name and address of the Jew who would eat it,
> so one cannot claim that it was unmarked or that yiush of some other
> form applies. If it were kosher, there'd certainly be an obligation to
> return it.

> Halachic ruling issued by Rabbi Karelitz says because advanced cellular
> phone is 'not kosher,' there is no obligation to give it back to its owner
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4396770,00.html 
 
> Are there categories of items that need not be returned outside of our
> Eilu Metzios memories? Or is this a whole new Halachic construct?
 
> Gershon 
> gershon.du...@juno.com

Extension of already existing theory?-see link below 
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/07/rav-sternbuch-destroyin
g-television-to.html 

KT 
Joel Rich 

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>wrote:
> Are there categories of items that need not be returned outside of our
> Eilu Metzios memories?  Or is this a whole new Halachic construct?

Without seeing the teshuva it is tough to say.  Maybe he is saying that
lifnei ever trumps hashavas aveida in this scenario as opposed to a whole
new category.

Saul

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:26:19 -0400
> There's nothing new about this.   Given the premise that these phones are
> assur to have, then it follows that one not only needn't return them but one
> *may* not do so.

My unsaid question was a request for sources that certain items or classes
of items are exempt from hashavas aveida. That is not at all simple.

[Email #2. -micha]

From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:44:19 GMT
> It sounds reasonable to me, that if a Jew lost an object, and the only
> or main function of that object was to do aveiros, then returning that
> object would be a violation of Michshol.

> Let's take a simpler example: I find a container of food, clearly marked
> with the name of the non-kosher restaurant that it came from... If

> My first inclination is to say that this is Michshol, because there's
> no possible way for him to eat THIS food unless I return it. Or perhaps
> one can say that it is only Mesayaya, because even without this food,
> he'll eat other treif instead...

With a little imagination one could come up with a variation on your
scenario that would explain my owning the treif food. Is your chiyuv
of hashavas aveida dependent on your degree of imagination?

What about if you found my container of cholov hacompanies? shatnes? A
hechsher you consider unreliable? Vegetables that, in your opinion,
cannot be cleaned from bugs?

The only thing I can imagine being subject to this kind of judgment on
the part of the finder is something that is assur behana'ah, and that
only due to precedents in the Gemara.

To quote one of our less reputable ancestors, mi samecha le'ish sar
veshofeit alenu? And to quote myself, sources please?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

Agreed that a marvelous NM dry wine would not be preferable to one who
doesn't like it, and you should stick to sweet. However, there are many
fine sweet and semi-sweet wines that are non-mevushal, and therefore
preferable to the mevushal sweet wine that you are imbibing now.
Cheers,
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130729/9717edd1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 07:14:28AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> See http://tinyurl.com/lt6l2qv

No. And (as someone noted in the comment chain) the question doesn't
even reflect the content of the post. At most, the question is whether
Qabbalah would be heretical according to the Rambam, but we didn't
end up accepting the Rambam's original formulation of the 13 iqarim.
(Perhaps for this very reason.) It's the limits of the iqarim, not
Qabbalah, which is under discussion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:45:06AM +0300, Simi Peters wrote:
: My mother told me that the reason we didn't eat garlic on Pesach was
: because garlic used to be stored in sacks of wheat (to keep it fresh,
: I assume)...

I assumed it was so that there would be a little flour around to soak
up dampness. The way some people keep a few grains of dry rice in their
salt shaker.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

From: "Kenneth Miller"  <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
>>Sometimes one has to choose which  mitzvah he will be strict on, and 
which he needs to be lenient on. If someone  wants to be machmir on Dina 
D'Malchusa Dina, and not serve wine to minors, he  may choose to make Kiddush on 
grape juice or on challah.  <<
 
 

Akiva Miller





>>>>>>
 
I believe that the law in all or most states is that parents are allowed to 
 give their minor children wine, especially as part of a religious ritual.
 

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




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130729/39bd9925/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Chaim Manaster asked:

> If this microbial attack is on citrus in general then has anyone heard
> whether the esrog has been affected and is in danger much like the orange?
>

My understanding is that all citrus fruit are potentially in danger.
Esrogim (Citrus medica) have been found to be susceptible to infection,
although I don't know whether they are affected as badly as oranges. It's
worth keeping in mind that consumers demand only the most beautiful esrogim
for the mitzva and growers manage to supply this even though esrogim are
notoriously susceptible to infection: they just throw away a huge number of
less-beautiful specimens. The economics of this are such that the most
beautiful fruit pay for the whole orchard. So even if many esrogim are
infected I'm sure we'll have plenty of kosher ones, perhaps even plenty of
beautiful ones.

As for the DNA modification, I have no idea but I suspect it would not be
accepted.

All the best,
Joe Slater
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130730/1dfe769b/attachment-0001.htm>

Ben Waxmen wrote:
"Similarly with the Smartphone, OK, some say that it assur but why not
return it so that the Jew can sell it or give it away?"

Or perhaps they use it in a mutar way. Perhaps they have a very strong 
internet filter on the phone (for which their wife or someone else they 
trust has the password). Or perhaps they only use the 'smart' functions like 
calendars and the like but don't have internet access? Or perhaps their work 
gave it to them and requires them to carry it (in which case it may not even 
belong to them...).

-Eitan Levy 

RDC:

<<But it's important to remember that laws of physics are descriptive 
rather than prescriptive. The world doesn't "follow" the laws of 
physics. We make certain observations about the universe, and we then 
attempt to come up with a consistent set of rules -- a model of physics 
-- that elegantly explains it.>>

I don't think that's true.  A hint in your own paragraph is the elision 
from "descriptive" to "explains".  That is, physicists don't think they 
are making a convenient summary of how the world works; they think that 
the possibility of such a convenient summary implies something deep 
about the structure of the world which helps explain that structure.

And their objection to geocentrism is precisely that it denies the value 
of that deep explanation.

David Riceman

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:11:40AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> And their objection to geocentrism is precisely that it denies the value  
> of that deep explanation.

I'm not sure this objection is real. Yes, they don't use geocentrism when
it's the harder way to model things. But here are examples. And if you
compute movement relative to the galaxy as a whole, heliocentrism isn't
much better than geocentrism. And the galaxy too is in motion, etc...

From wiki, EMPHASIS mine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#The_view_of_modern_science
    In modern calculations the terms "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are
    often used to refer to reference frames. In such systems the origin
    in the center of mass of the Earth, of the Earth -- Moon system,
    of the Sun, of the Sun plus the major planets, or of the entire
    solar system can be selected; see center-of-mass frame. This leads
    to such terms as "heliocentric velocity" and "heliocentric angular
    momentum". In this heliocentric picture, any planet of the Solar
    System can be used as a source of mechanical energy because it moves
    relatively to the Sun. A smaller body (either artificial or natural)
    may gain heliocentric velocity due to gravity assist -- this effect
    can change the body's mechanical energy in heliocentric reference
    frame (although it will not changed in the planetary one). HOWEVER,
    SUCH SELECTION OF "GEOCENTRIC" OR "HELIOCENTRIC" FRAMES IS MERELY A
    MATTER OF COMPUTATION. iT DOES NOT HAVE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS
    AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DISTINCT PHYSICAL OR SCIENTIFIC MODEL. From
    the point of view of General Relativity, inertial reference frames
    do not exist at all, and any practical reference frame is only an
    approximation to the actual space-time, which can have higher or
    lower precision.

Or the aforementioned Discovery column
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20845#.Uff2oKzGDf0 ,
"Geocentrism is a valid frame, but not the /only/ one."

Or http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i8/p903_1 , "Effect of
General Relativity on a Near-Earth Satellite in the Geocentric and
Barycentric Reference Frames". (Barycentrism is what we /really/ mean
by heliocentrism, centered on the center of mass, which is pretty
close to the center of the sun. But our orbit is really baycentric,
not heliocentric.

Googling "barycentric geocentric relativity" will turn up a number of
hits for systems for converting between the two frames of reference
among the first pages of hits.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 30/07/2013 11:11 AM, David Riceman wrote:
> I don't think that's true.  A hint in your own paragraph is the
> elision from "descriptive" to "explains".  That is, physicists don't
> think they are making a convenient summary of how the world works;
> they think that the possibility of such a convenient summary implies
> something deep about the structure of the world which helps explain
> that structure.

> And their objection to geocentrism is precisely that it denies the
> value of that deep explanation.

This is not true.   Any number of models could explain our observations,
and there is no reason to suppose that the one which is simplest to use,
or which seems most elegant, is more "true" than any other.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

Me:
>> And their objection to geocentrism is precisely that it denies the value
>> of that deep explanation.
RMB:
> I'm not sure this objection is real. Yes, they don't use geocentrism when
> it's the harder way to model things. But here are examples. And if you
> compute movement relative to the galaxy as a whole, heliocentrism isn't
> much better than geocentrism. And the galaxy too is in motion, etc...
RZS:

<<This is not true.   Any number of models could explain our observations,
and there is no reason to suppose that the one which is simplest to use,
or which seems most elegant, is more "true" than any other. >>

There is some historical background here which the two of you are 
ignoring.  A central insight of science is that the world runs through 
law.  This was disputed, for example, by the Kalam, whose opinions the 
Rambam mocks (while acknowledging that they're not heretical) in MN 
I:73-76.  It was disputed by Galileo's oponents in the Catholic Church.  
More recently the opinion of the Kalam has been championed by Rabbi Dessler.

Now I find it hard to imagine that Kepler would have found his laws, 
Newton his, or Einstein his in the absence of the heliocentric model.  
And while you are skirting this idea, I think you could be understood to 
imply that there are no laws of planetary attraction or of gravity, and 
the formulae we use to approximate what I, at least, imagine to be laws, 
are really just coincidences, and tomorrow Mercury may just turn in a 
totally unexpected direction.

It's been years since I looked at the LR's letter on this subject, but 
at the time I did I remember classifying him with Rabbi Dessler and the 
Kalam.  So I think it plausible that RZS agrees with that opinion.  But 
I am less certain of RMB's opinion.

David Riceman

Rav Karelitz has paskened that there is no mitzvah (not allowed?) to return
a lost non-kosher phone

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130731/67275738/attachment.htm>

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


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 138
***************************************

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