Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 77

Fri, 02 May 2014

• 1. Kohein and Transplant from Cadaver (M Cohen)
• 2. Re: halachic hierarchy in psak (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: obsession with kitniyot (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Samuel Svarc)
• 6. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: obsession with kitniyot (Samuel Svarc)
• 8. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Re: obsession with kitniyot (David Cohen)
• 10. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: obsession with kitniyot (Lisa Liel)

Many dental implants use cadaver bone to help fill the hole 
where the post is placed in the jaw (as part of the procedure)

Alternatively, porcine or synthetic bone can be used.

I asked r Shlomo Miller about it, and he said that m'ikar hadin
the cadaver bone was ok because of tumah baluah, 
but I should use the alternative bone if possible.

Mordechai Cohen (haCohen)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_implant
Bone grafting is necessary when there is a lack of bone. While there are
always new implant types and techniques to allow compromise, a general
treatment goal is to have a minimum of 10 mm in bone height, and 6 mm in
width. 
To achieve an adequate width and height of bone, various bone grafting
techniques have been developed. The most frequently used is called guided
bone graft augmentation where a defect is filled with either natural
(harvested or autograft) bone or allograft (donor bone or synthetic bone
substitute), covered with a semi-permeable membrane and allowed to heal.
During the healing phase, natural bone replaces the graft forming a new bony
base for the implant.[22]:223

Pesak is fuzier than fuzzy logic, it's an art. R/Dr Moshe Koppel (CC-ed,
as I did every other time this topic comes up) describes the difference
as that between someone who learns the rules of grammar and a native
speaker of the language. The latter just knows what "sounds right",and
is therefore equipped to judge how far poetic license can go far more
than the person who knows English only through studying the rules.

=============================
Interesting-This can probably be extended to the whole ethics debate  -
consequentialism vs. deontology vs. "sounds right" and we make up a theory
to explain our gut reaction.  Of course this leaves us at a loss to mediate
differing guts!
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.

On 5/2/2014 2:01 AM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> When someone whose grandparents come from four very different places, 
> you can get these confusions. This is what I meant when I wrote about 
> the sefardi girl who marries an ashhkenazi guy; often they change the 
> custom (in the reverse situation, usually she is glad drop the whole 
> thing).

I was actually referring solely to my patrilineal line.  Belarus was one 
stop on the way to America.


[Email #2]

On 5/2/2014 2:09 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> R'n LL:
>> Families choose whether to keep chalav Yisrael or not.  That's a huge
>> difference.  And when a kid moves out on their own, they get to decide anew
>> for themselves.  They don't have to keep it because their parents did.

> I don't think Cholov Yisroel-keeping people see it this way.

Of course they don't.  Because if they stop keeing cholov yisroel after 
they move out, they aren't cholov yisrael keeping people any more.


[Email #3]

On 5/2/2014 8:40 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> There is a concept of beis av. And qiddushin (not eirusin) marks a
> woman's transition from her father's beis av to her husband's. Which
> is why minhag avos runs patrilineally. So, the last community your
> father's father to the n-th lived in that had a minhag hamaqom would
> be the minhag you should stick with until moving to a new maqom that has
> its own minhagim.

I have no knowledge of what, if any, minhag they had in Nesvizh.  I know 
that the ship my great-grandfather arrived in NY on departed from 
Rotterdam.  Should I be keeping Dutch minhag?  How long do you have to 
be in a locale for that minhag to count?

Lisa

On 2/05/2014 10:35 AM, Samuel Svarc wrote:
> I wondered if I needed to make this explicit, but figured since the
> words used was gardener there was no need. I see now I was wrong.
>
> The discussion centered around work done on private property, where there
> is a personal component to the work (layout, design, etc.). We were not
> discussing planting some crops in a far away public field.

That's just the point: that is *not* the topic.  Some Areivim seem to have
mistakenly thought it was the topic, and that is why they have such a problem
with what the Torah says.  But it isn't.


> Again, a true BD would thrash our trespasser/gardener/squatter, using
> maakos mardus to prevent the breakdown of society, after forcing him
> to pay him for being a 'mazek' and damaging the garden he pillaged.

Except that a true BD would look in the gemara and Shulchan Aruch, where it
says to do the opposite.   You're arguing here against a firmly established
halacha.


> To avoid him and his other 'anshei sedom' friends from "removing splinters
> from someones fence until there is no fence left" (in whatever form this
> manifests itself in), BD will thrash the first person.

Except that the halacha says it's the second person, the owner, who is a
sodomite.

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 2/05/2014 10:35 AM, Samuel Svarc wrote:
>
>> I wondered if I needed to make this explicit, but figured since the
>> words used was gardener there was no need. I see now I was wrong.
>>
>> The discussion centered around work done on private property, where there
>> is a personal component to the work (layout, design, etc.). We were not
>> discussing planting some crops in a far away public field.
>>
>
> That's just the point: that is *not* the topic.  Some Areivim seem to have
> mistakenly thought it was the topic, and that is why they have such a
> problem
> with what the Torah says.  But it isn't.


The scenario of a gardener is the one that was raised. You might like to
focus on a different scenario, but at least recognize that you're changing
the topic.


>  Again, a true BD would thrash our trespasser/gardener/squatter, using
>> maakos mardus to prevent the breakdown of society, after forcing him
>> to pay him for being a 'mazek' and damaging the garden he pillaged.
>>
>
> Except that a true BD would look in the gemara and Shulchan Aruch, where it
> says to do the opposite.   You're arguing here against a firmly established
> halacha.


No, I'm arguing against what you have presented; without any proof or
logic, I might add. We know that in the scenario that was raised, a
gardener, there can be hezek reiah. We know that if someone was a mazek, he
needs to pay recompense. We know that a true BD can use maakos mardus to
prevent societal breakdown. The onus is on you to show how these well
established halachic facts, found in the gemara and Shulchan Aruch, don't
apply in the scenario raised.


>  To avoid him and his other 'anshei sedom' friends from "removing splinters
>> from someones fence until there is no fence left" (in whatever form this
>> manifests itself in), BD will thrash the first person.
>>
>
> Except that the halacha says it's the second person, the owner, who is a
> sodomite.


Kindly state a source for your assertion, beyond just reasserting.

KT,
MSS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140502/30aa6229/attachment.htm>

On 2/05/2014 12:36 PM, Samuel Svarc wrote:
>
> The scenario of a gardener is the one that was raised. You might like
> to focus on a different scenario, but at least recognize that you're
> changing the topic.

What was raised was the sugya that is discussed in the gemara and poskim.
And that topic is not about the ornamental garden of a residential home.
It's about a market garden.  In Chazal's and the poskim's days personal
ornamental gardens in which people are emotionally involved, and which
produce no income,didn't exist.  That is the source of the mistake made by
those who have difficulty understanding the sugya.


> No, I'm arguing against what you have presented; without any proof or logic,
> I might add. We know that in the scenario that was raised, a gardener, there
> can be hezek reiah.

Nothing in the topic raised suggested that the garden was attached to a
residence.  This was a bad assumption made by some commenters.


>> Except that the halacha says it's the second person, the owner, who is a
>> sodomite.

> Kindly state a source for your assertion, beyond just reasserting.

Again, this is explicit in the sugya, and in that of kofin al midas sedom.

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:

>
> On 5/2/2014 2:09 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
>
>> R'n LL:
>>
>>> Families choose whether to keep chalav Yisrael or not.  That's a huge
>>> difference.  And when a kid moves out on their own, they get to decide
>>> anew
>>> for themselves.  They don't have to keep it because their parents did.
>>>
>>
>  I don't think Cholov Yisroel-keeping people see it this way.
>>
>
> Of course they don't.  Because if they stop keeing cholov yisroel after
> they move out, they aren't cholov yisrael keeping people any more.
>

No. What R' MYG meant was that poskim of the Cholov Yisroel-keeping variety
feel that this is halacha. If a person remains in that community he might
be required to keep that p'sak, unlike minhag which is far more lenient.
E.G. I was told to "kasher" (mildly) a toaster oven that someone used for
cholov hacompanies product.


>
>
> [Email #3]
>
>
> On 5/2/2014 8:40 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
>> There is a concept of beis av. And qiddushin (not eirusin) marks a
>> woman's transition from her father's beis av to her husband's. Which
>> is why minhag avos runs patrilineally. So, the last community your
>> father's father to the n-th lived in that had a minhag hamaqom would
>> be the minhag you should stick with until moving to a new maqom that has
>> its own minhagim.
>>
>
> I have no knowledge of what, if any, minhag they had in Nesvizh.  I know
> that the ship my great-grandfather arrived in NY on departed from
> Rotterdam.  Should I be keeping Dutch minhag?  How long do you have to be
> in a locale for that minhag to count?


Machlokes haposkim, re to which level back one can go (can a son of a
chassid go back to daven Nusach Ashkenaz - presumably, at some generation
up the family tree their grandparents davened Ashkenaz - can he skip back
up) and whether, when establishing ones own home, one can break from his
father's minhagim.

In practice, that is what happens regardless. New minhagim are formed,
usually at some point of change: Geographic (moves to a new place),
ruchniyos (joins a different kehillah), marital status (blends with his new
family member, adds or discards what he didn't like from his father),
situational (something previous generations didn't have), etc.

Many Rebbes have stated that they are like their father. "He changed from
his father, and I change from him". R' Arehle Belzer, different Gerrer
Rebbes, etc.

KT,
MSS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140502/70f751c5/attachment.htm>

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> We are not talking about someone who breaks into your house and
> paints it. We are talking about someone paints your barn, or your
> factory, which badly needed painting. We're not talking about
> someone who plants petunias in the front garden of your house;
> we're talking about someone who plants tomatoes in your field
> which exists for the sole purpose of growing commercial crops.

There seems to be a difference among the several posters on this topic,
regarding the exemptions to this halacha; how often will the worker be
entitled to payment, and how often can the baal habayis get out of it.

But those differences are trivial compared to the far-reaching manner  that
this halacha was first described with. In R' Eli Turkel's initial post on
this topic, he wrote:

> "Yored Le-toch Sadeh Chavero She-lo Be-reshut"
>
> (a) someone plants something in my garden that I dont want or
> dyes my white shirt blue while I wear white shirts - the gardener
> or dyer is entitled to his expenses which according to some
> including his labor at some minimum level

The way that this is framed -- and the way I remember hearing it decades
ago and ever since -- and the way it sounded to RET himself -- this is a
simple recipe for extortion.

But then RZS started teaching us the details and the exceptions. This
changed my feeling quite a bit. While before I felt the halacha to be
unfair, I now came to resent the omission of these far-reaching exemptions,
and so I wrote:

> But this would seem to be a critically important detail, which
> would overturn almost any attempted application of this halacha.
> In the VAST majority of cases, it is indeed no favor at all, as
> you wrote. Perhaps he wanted to do the work himself, or perhaps
> he didn't even want it done at all.
>
> I am a person who understand that the gemara and poskim often
> discuss extreme cases, because that is often the best way to
> illustrate a concept. But this case is such a "karov l'vadai"
> that I am surprised that the halacha discusses it at all.

I have since calmed down somewhat, and I've realized that this sort of
thing happens elsewhere as well. For example, I remember when I first
learned about the gezera not to take medicine on Shabbos.

Whoever it was that taught me this, was very careful to point out that it
does not apply in a pikuach nefesh situation, which overrides even a
Melacha d'Oraisa. However, it was not until several years later that I
learned that because this prohibition is "merely" a d'rabanan, it doesn't
apply to a choleh she'EIN bo sakana either! The ONLY one who isn't allowed
to take medicine on Shabbos is the one suffering from minor aches and pains
(the exact definition of which will not be discussed here).

For quite a while, I was upset at what I perceived as a misrepresentation
of the halacha. In actuality, I made the mistake of accepting what I
learned at face value, and failing to investigate it further. Thus we see
the importance of continued serious learning. Far too often, we see a
halacha and are totally unaware of the many conditions and nuances that it
is dependent on.

(I am tempted to quote RZS's wonderful new sig line, but in this case it works backwards: I saw malice in others, but *I* was the incompetent.)

And so, instead of "having an attitude" about this, I'd like to learn it in
more depth. R' Zev, can you suggest any mar'eh m'komos where you learned
about the details and requirements?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
STOP eating carbs
#1 Trick to do BEFORE you eat carbs (every time)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5363d737d4a057362da7st03vuc

Lisa Liel wrote:
>>  We had some nosh for the kids, and one girl
>> asked if we keep kitniyot, because she wanted to be sure she
>> could eat in our house.  Seriously?

Are you sure she actually meant whether she could eat in your house at all?
 Could it be that she just wanted to know whether she could eat anything
without question or she should ask about individual items?


>> I'm not part of the people who lived in Eastern Europe any more than I
>> am the people who lived in Spain.  That's the thing.

As R' Micha has pointed out, minhag avos is meant to come into play when
there is no fixed minhag hamakom.  As I understand it, this is not an
arbitrary rule, but reflects the fact that we all have a natural (and, I
would say, positive) tendency to identify and affiliate with a particular
community, and in the absence of a geographic community that shares
minhagim, we naturally affiliate ourselves with the virtual community of
those who share a common origin.  In other words, the idea of following
minhag avos is more descriptive of how we view ourselves than it is
prescriptive.

I'm not paskening, but I would think it reasonable to say that someone who
really feels as Lisa does, and feels just as much "at home" in a Sefaradi
shul as in an Ashkenazi shul, and has no special connection to Ashkenazi
tradition, need not necessarily abstain from kitniyot, even if his or her
patrilineal ancestors did.  I realize that there are children or Ashkenazi
fathers -- especially in Israel, and especially with mothers from other
edot -- who already feel this way.  (I have nieces and nephews of whom this
is probably true.)  It may be that my own grandchildren will feel this way
(especially if my children marry Jews from other edot), and that will be a
completely natural process.

But as for me, as much as I see positive value in kibbutz galuyot and the
beginnings of the creation of a new "Israeli" community identity, the
reality is that I identify very much as a continuation of the subset of Am
Yisrael that lived in Europe.  I daven nusach Ashkenaz, feel "at home" in
Ashkenazi shuls (even while I enjoy visiting the shuls of other edot as a
guest), eat traditional Ashkenazi holiday foods, sing traditional Ashkenazi
melodies, and approach my Torah learning through the prism of methodologies
that were characteristic of Ashkenazi learning.  For me to depart from
Ashkenazi custom or practice on kitniyos or any other particular issue,
based on a claim that "I'm not Ashkenazi, I'm Israeli," would simply be
dishonest.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140502/0cbb48e3/attachment.htm>

On 2/05/2014 6:03 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> What decision was there to be made?  He has done you a favour.  You are
>> objectively better off now than you were before, and even after paying
>> him you will be objectively better off, so what rational reason could you
>> possibly have for not wanting him to have done the work?  In what way did
>> he harm you?

> He harmed me because I have a regular gardener who does my lawn or snow removal.
> Now a stranger comes removes the snow and demands full payment.

So how does that harm *you*?  It harms your regular guy, and while in general
he would not have a case against the interloper, in such a case he might well
have one.  But what case do *you* have?  What difference does it make to you
whether you pay him or your regular guy?

> I repeat my question that this seems like a nice way for someone to make money.
> After a snow storm he quickly goes to all the yards in the town and removes the
> snow from the lawns.

How does this help people?   In what way are they better off not having snow on
their lawns?  (Unless they like it, in which case they won't complain.)

> True some people will claim they didnt mind the snow etc and he can claim
> only expenses.

No, he can't claim anything, because he hasn't provided anything of value to
them.

> However, many/most people have a deal with someone to remove their snow and
> instead now have to pay this person who did him a "favor" by coming illegally
> into his property.

The illegal entry isn't an issue.  The question is whether he has done you a
favour or not.  If you have already paid someone to do the work, or will have
to pay that person, then this person has done no favour at all, and can't claim
anything even if you do like having your snow removed.

Again, the whole case of snow removal isn't relevant to the sugya, which is
talking about someone making an objective improvement to your property,
leaving you better off by an easily measurable amount.


On 2/05/2014 6:27 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>: He harmed me because I have a regular gardener who does moy lawn or snow
>: removal. Now a stranger comes removes the snow and demands full payment.

> The question isn't whether he added value to the field objectively,
> but whether the baal gained value subjectively. So, the second you
> write "he harmed me because..." your case wouldn't require payment.

On the contrary, as I understand it the question is precisely whether he
added objective value to the field.  Removing snow doesn't add any value
to a lawn, so it isn't the topic of the sugya.  Cultivating a field that
was empty objectively improves it, which is why the person is entitled to
be paid the lesser of his expenses or the value he added.

But I agree that if you can explain rationally how he harmed you then by
definition he has not helped you.

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

On 5/2/2014 2:01 AM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> When someone whose grandparents come from four very different places, 
> you can get these confusions. This is what I meant when I wrote about 
> the sefardi girl who marries an ashhkenazi guy; often they change the 
> custom (in the reverse situation, usually she is glad drop the whole 
> thing).

I was actually referring solely to my patrilineal line.  Belarus was one 
stop on the way to America.


[Email #2]

On 5/2/2014 2:09 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> R'n LL:
>> Families choose whether to keep chalav Yisrael or not.  That's a huge
>> difference.  And when a kid moves out on their own, they get to decide anew
>> for themselves.  They don't have to keep it because their parents did.

> I don't think Cholov Yisroel-keeping people see it this way.

Of course they don't.  Because if they stop keeing cholov yisroel after 
they move out, they aren't cholov yisrael keeping people any more.


[Email #3]

On 5/2/2014 8:40 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> There is a concept of beis av. And qiddushin (not eirusin) marks a
> woman's transition from her father's beis av to her husband's. Which
> is why minhag avos runs patrilineally. So, the last community your
> father's father to the n-th lived in that had a minhag hamaqom would
> be the minhag you should stick with until moving to a new maqom that has
> its own minhagim.

I have no knowledge of what, if any, minhag they had in Nesvizh.  I know 
that the ship my great-grandfather arrived in NY on departed from 
Rotterdam.  Should I be keeping Dutch minhag?  How long do you have to 
be in a locale for that minhag to count?

Lisa


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


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 32, Issue 77
**************************************

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.)