Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 88

Wed, 21 May 2014

• 1. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha (Joseph Kaplan)
• 3. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha keeping, , , couple (David Riceman)
• 4. The Spreading Fires Of Lag Baomer: Tempting Quick & Easy ?Spirituality? vs. Enduring Ruchnius (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha keeping, , , couple (Zev Sero)
• 6. Moshe Rabenu's yahrzeit (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. "Black Wedding" on Har haZeisim, 1904 (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Moshe Rabenu's yahrzeit (Zev Sero)
• 9. R? Jonathan Ziring (Ben Rothke)
• 10. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Fixing a Typesetting Error in Order to Understand The View of the Mishnah Berurah on Women Wearing Tefillin (Prof. Levine)
• 12. More re Power of Sevara: Lama Li Kera Sevara Hu (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 13. Greeting Others (Prof. Levine)

On 14/05/2014 11:06 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote:
> I looked into this because I was wondering if what R' JK said 
> regarding referring the patient to another therapist was correct. It 
> is, at least according to the American Association for Marriage and 
> Family  Therapy. Here are some relevant excerpts (the original 
> available at
> http://www.aamft.org/imis15/content/legal_ethics/code_of_ethics.aspx):

R' ZS:
Why is this relevant?   I took it for granted that the therapist union would
have such a rule, but so what?  How does the existence of such a rule make
it ethical to comply with it, or unethical not to?  What gives unions the
right to define what is ethical or not?  I can write a whole new set of
rules that will contradict the union ones; are my rules also to have the
same status, and if not, why not?  What makes them better qualified to know
right from wrong than I am?
--------------------------------------- 

I was going to write, in my original post, something like this: "To preempt
R' ZS's inevitable response, let me just say that I'm not taking a position
on whether or not the AAMFT's code of ethics is correct or if it should be
followed. I'm just saying, as a matter of fact, that R' JK was correct in
his assertion that such a rule exists." 
But I decided that I wasn't going to be argumentative, and that it was clear
that I wasn't taking any position, and it was late at night, so I didn't
bother. Let me be clear now about this. See my previous paragraph. :-)

KT,
MYG

It's relevant because the therapist has agreed to be bound by the code of
ethics and the patient has gone to the therapist knowing that therapists
have agreed to such rules.  This, by violating the code the therapist is
breaking his agreement and misleading the patient. Of course, if the
therapist believes that halachically she cannot follow the code of ethics,
ISTM she has four options: follow the psak and not advise the patient of
better therapeutic treatments thus breaking her agreement and misleading
her patient, violate Halacha, advise the patient that her recommended
course of treatment is not the optimum one from a therapeutic point of view
but she is recommending it because [add explanation], find another 
therapist for the patient or stop being a therapist. RZS opts for the
first. I think any of the others are more honest. 
Joseph

Sent from my iPhone

> R' ZS:
> Why is this relevant?   I took it for granted that the therapist union would
> have such a rule, but so what?  How does the existence of such a rule make
> it ethical to comply with it, or unethical not to?  What gives unions the
> right to define what is ethical or not?  I can write a whole new set of
> rules that will contradict the union ones; are my rules also to have the
> same status, and if not, why not?  What makes them better qualified to know
> right from wrong than I?

Me:

a. I couldn't find the details of the procedure, but I imagine that
accepting the license involves a shvua d'orayysa.

RZS:

So what?  Masneh al ma shekasuv batorah is automatically invalid.

The question here is whether he's allowed to accept non-nidda-observing clients.  Where does the Torah say he has to do that?

Me:

b. Certainly violating the ethical code involves losing one's license
and hence one's parnassah.

RZS:

Only if you get caught.

Are you seriously claiming that a Jew is allowed to violate his country's laws as long as he doesn't get caught?  Surely you jest.

David Riceman

 From http://tinyurl.com/mgsh8of

In the past we have discussed at length 
(<http://treasuresofashkenaz.wordpress.com/2011
/05/20/no-no-no-no-no-minhag-ashkenaz-on-lag-baomer/>5771, 
<htt
p://treasuresofashkenaz.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/more-reasons-for-avoiding-
the-new-lag-baomer-fads-or-the-hidden-dangers-of-new-customs/>5772, 
<http://treasuresofashkenaz.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/
what-lag-baomer-hype-inc-doesnt-tell-you-lesser-known-facts-and-aspects-of-
%D7%97%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A8/>5773A, 
<http://treasuresofashkenaz.wordp
ress.com/2013/04/30/rav-elyashiv-rav-shach-and-the-chazon-ish-%D7%96%D7%A6%
D7%9C-on-going-to-meron-on-lag-baomer-rav-elyashivs-talmid-student-speaks-o
ut/>5773B, 
and 
<http://treasuresofashkenaz.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/
lag-baomer-in-the-eyes-of-the-litvishe-tradition-r-dov-halbertals-critical-
analysis-rendered-into-english-%D7%9C%D7%92-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A8-
%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%92/>5773C) 
how Lag Baomer is marked in minhag Ashkenaz, and contrasted it with 
other, more recent customs, that have become popular among other 
groups. Readers are directed to those previous posts if they wished 
to review what has been written here in the past on the topic. 
However, there is still a need for additional accurate information 
and Torah perspective on the inyan, especially when people are being 
bombarded with information not in accordance with our mesorah, which 
can seem tantalizing and tempting. So it is time to revisit the inyan 
again, as it is about to become once more.

The Prescience of the Chasam Sofer

A main exhibit of the stance of Minhag Ashkenaz on Lag Baomer, is, of 
course, the words of the Chasam Sofer about it, as we have discussed 
and linked 
to<http://treasuresofashkenaz.wordpress.com/2011
/05/20/no-no-no-no-no-minhag-ashkenaz-on-lag-baomer/> 
in the past.

Some may wonder, about the Chasam Sofer's position. After all, we see 
some groups who claim to venerate and follow him, which do not follow 
what he wrote on this topic.

----------
See the above URL for much more.  YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140517/f4b1cf20/attachment-0001.htm>

On 16/05/2014 10:13 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> I'm just saying, as a matter of fact, that R' JK was correct in
> his assertion that such a rule exists."

I assumed from the beginning that such a rule must exist. Such rules
are common, and it was obvious to me that there was likely to be one.
But I object to calling *any* set of union rules "ethics", or to referring
to a breach of such rules as "unethical".

[Email #2]

On 16/05/2014 11:17 AM, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote:
> It's relevant because the therapist has agreed to be bound by the
> code of ethics and the patient has gone to the therapist knowing that
> therapists have agreed to such rules.

Masneh al mah shekosuv batorah. This is no different than an agreement
to rob a bank. It's not binding. Suppose the legislature decided
that therapists must report patients with a certain condition, and the
therapist union decided that this was "unethical", so it put in its "code
of ethics" that therapists must break this law. With your respect for
the law, would you still think that they must obey this "ethical rule"
and break the law?!

> ISTM she has four options: [...] (2) violate Halacha [...]. RZS opts for
> the first. I think any of the others are more honest.

You think violating halacha is "more honest" than keeping it?!  Mushba ve'omed
mehar sinai!

[Email #2]

On 16/05/2014 2:52 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
> Me:
>>> a. I couldn't find the details of the procedure, but I imagine that
>>> accepting the license involves a shvua d'orayysa.

> RZS:
>> So what?  Masneh al ma shekasuv batorah is automatically invalid.

> The question here is whether he's allowed to accept non-nidda-observing
> clients.  Where does the Torah say he has to do that?

Why on earth shouldn't he? Where does it say he shouldn't? Why should
anyone turn away paying clients, when neither the Torah nor the law
demands it? There is no conflict until the issue arises, and at that
time he must obey the Torah and therefore disobey the law.

>>> b. Certainly violating the ethical code involves losing one's license
>>> and hence one's parnassah.

>> Only if you get caught.

> Are you seriously claiming that a Jew is allowed to violate his country's
> laws as long as he doesn't get caught?

Of course. Not only may he, but if they conflict with halacha he must.
You are the one who raised the issue of parnassah, and the possibility
that this might give him a heter to bend the halacha, but such a heter
would only be available if he was likely to get caught. If he can arrange
things so he's likely not to be caught then he has no heter to compromise
on the halacha just for the sake of "not breaking the law". Only if
he can't break the law without getting caught is there a possibility of
a heter to do a minor issur in order to avoid the consequences.

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

In the thread titled "A Printing Mistake and the Mysterious Origins of Rashbi's Yahrzeit", I wrote:

> My understanding is that the Chevra Kadisha DOES make a seudah
> on Moshe Rabbeinu's yahrzeit. Granted that seudah is not a
> bonfire, but it is most certainly not a taanis.

I would like to thank the many people who wrote me, both on and off list,
that many Chevros Kadisha DO have a taanis on this day, and that the seudah
is actually after the taanis.

In my defense, I'd like to point out that this does not seem to be universal. R' Eliyahu Kitov, in The Book Of Our Heritage, vol 2 pg 27, writes:

"It is customary in many Jewish communities for the Chevrah Kadisha. to
observe the seventh of Adar as a day of gathering for all members of the
Chevrah. On the seventh of Adar they hold a festive banquet, in which the
entire community participates. ..." - No mention of fasting.

As a practical example, I cite the practice of my own community, Elizabeth
NJ. See the flyer at http://jec
elmorashul.org/flyers/2014/Chevra_ZayinAdar.pdf in which the Chevra
Kadisha invites the community to a 10 AM shiur, followed by a brunch.

Question: In those communities which *do* fast on 7 Adar, is the seudah
held at night after the taanis, or is it earlier, so that the seudah
cancels the fast similar to Taanis Bechorim?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5379e89ca7212689c4716st03vuc

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 1:12:22pm EDT, RMYG posted on Areivim:
: http://www.israeldailypicture.com/2014/05/chapter-je
: wish-life-cycle-black-wedding.html

: Fascinating, never heard of this before.

I am stymied:

First, our people never needed an excuse before to raise funds
and taking care of the logistics for getting a couple of yesomim
established. Why is this some special thing that would require
the motivation of ending an epidemic to happen?

And then, what about the chiyuv lesameiach chasan vekhalah? Who
wants a "dark" wedding in a cemetery?

And is that really tzedaqah, when the entire gift is formatted to scream
"we're doing this out of self-interest" even at the expense of the
recipients' simchah?

While typing this, my head went in a different direction...

Perhaps it's assur to get married during an epidemic, and the whole
chasunah couldn't have happened if it weren't turned into a tefillah
as well. Would that explain it? Thoughts?

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?

On 19/05/2014 7:17 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Question: In those communities which*do*  fast on 7 Adar, is the
> seudah held at night after the taanis, or is it earlier, so that the
> seudah cancels the fast similar to Taanis Bechorim?

I can't speak about those who do it on 7 Adar, but the ch"k descended from those
in Lita, who hold this observance on 15 Kislev, they complete the fast and have
the seudah after maariv.  One reason for the date is that it's a short day, and
never falls on Shabbos.

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

I recently came across a number of shiurim and articles by R? Jonathan
Ziring at http://www.yutorah.org/Jonathan_Ziring.   I found him to be quite
engaging and well versed.



He deals with many fascinating topics which are likely to be of interest to
Avodah readers.


Some of the insights he had are in these 3 shiurim which I have listened to
so far are:



?         Halacha's Response to The Emergence of Denominations: Tinok
Shenishba ? how the Minchas Elozar seemingly erred in a fact re. the
interactions with the Karaite's, based on evidence from the Cairo genizah



?         Yichud: Formal, Substantive, or Both ? Chidush  of the Shevet
HaLevi that there is yichud in an elevator at all times given Chatzi Shiur
Assur Min HaTorah.



?         Yuhara: Between Chumra and Arrogance ? Observation of Rabbi Dr.
Jeffrey Woolf that Mechzei k'yehura does not mean appearance of arrogance,
rather of being presumptuous; just as mechzei k'mevashel doesn?t mean
cooking.


His blog is at shaashuim.wordpress.com



Let me know what you think.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140520/97be5738/attachment-0001.htm>

RET writes:
>Indeed this sugya is full of disagreements on all levels. I shall attemot
>to bring sources (which disagree with much of what has been claimed)

>The origin is Baba Metzia 71a.

I may be missing something, but I cannot find it on Baba Metzia 71a.  Where
I am aware of the sugya being discussed is Baba Metzia 101a-b.

> The gemara says that if the field is not rented that "yado al hatachtona"
> while if it is rented then "yado al haelyana" . 

Again I am not quite sure where this is, the relevant section on 101a is:

?????, ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????, ??? ??: ???? ??, ???? ??
???????. ?????? ???: ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????. ??? ?? ???:
??? ?????; ??? - ???? ?????? ????, ??? - ???? ????? ????? ????. ??? ??? ???
?????? ?????, ??? ????? ?????. ????? ???? ????? ???, ??? ???: ??? ??? ???! -
??? ???: ?? ?????. - ??? ???: ??? ??? ???, ???? ?? ???????. - ??? ???: ??
?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??. - ??? ???: ???? ?????? ????? ?? - ???
??? ???, ???? ?? ???????.

In this section I can't find any reference to the question of being rented
or not - just a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to how to evaluate what
ought to be paid.  Rav indeed uses the term yado al hatachtona - and then
Rav Papa clarifies that they are not arguing, it depends on whether we are
talking about a field which is suitable for planting trees, or not.  Not
that Rashi there explains that even a field that is not "suitable for
planting trees" is only talking about a field which it is more suited for
planting crops (ie the assumption is an agricultural field, not a pleasure
garden).

> There is a disagreement between Ramban and Baal Hamaor exactly what "yado
haelyana" means, ie what level of wages is he entitled to.The mor relevant
question for our discussion is what >happens when the the land owner says he
is not interested in the improvement and the outsider should remove it. It
seems to be accepted >that if to begin with the owner says that he doesnt
>want the improvement that the "yored" s not entitled to anything. Similarly
ifd the field is not meant for planting than the owner can >demand that the
"yored" remove everything and not be >paid.

>If the field is meant for planting then Rav Hai Gaon and Baal Hamaor, hold
that the owner has no right to demand that the yored undo his work. Rif,
disagrees and says he has such a right.
>Ramban and Rashba say that this applies only in a field not meant for
planting while Rosh says that the owner can make thios claim even in a field
meant for planting.
>SA paskens like the Rosh (CM 375:1) .

And the Beis Yosef understands the Rambam as saying like the Rosh.

>According to this opinion both sides have the right to undo the improvement
and so it is not clear how the payment should be made as both sides have
bargaining chips. 

This seems a bit of a logical jump, however into the next sugya in the
gemora.  Ie so far we have been discussing the situation where the yored is
just demanding payment, and the owner is telling him to take his trees and
go away, not where the yored is threatening to undo the improvement.
However the next section, in Baba Metzia 101a-b, does deal with this saying:

?????, ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??????, ???? ??: ???? ?????? ???
????, ?? ???? ???: ?????? ??, ?? ??? ???: ??? ?????? ??. ??????, ??? ?????
?? ?????? ????: ??? ???? ??????: ?????? ??, ???? ??? ??????: ??? ?????? ??.
???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? - ??? ???? ?? ??? ???, ?????: ?????? ??, ????
??? ????? ?? ?????. ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????: ??? ???? ??????: ?????? ??,
???? ??? ??????: ??? ?????? ??. ??? ??? ???? - ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????: 
- ???? ?????? ??, ???? - ??? ?????? ??. ???? ??? ???? - ???? ???? ??? ?????.
???? ?????: ???? ???? ?????. ??? ???????? ???? ??????? ???? ????.

Ie it draws a distinction between a yored who threatens to undo the building
of a ruin he has done without permission, by taking his wood and stones
back, where he is allowed to do this, and a yored who has planted a field,
where he is not allowed - but the reason for not being allowed is disputed.
Either it is because there is a positive good in having a field sown in
Eretz Yisrael, so we do not let him undo this (with such a reason not
applying in chutz l'aretz) or because the trees weaken the ground, so by
putting them in and taking them out, he is causing damage to the field and
not leaving it in the state in which it was previously.  The Shulchan Aruch
Choshen Mishpat siman 375 si'if 2 clearly poskens like the latter reason,
meaning that the rule applies also in chutz l'aretz - which means that the
yored only has the right to undo the improvement if in doing so he can
effectively puts the owner back in the position he was in before.

>Thus in practice the level of payment will result from bargaining of the
two sides.

So I wouldn't have thought this was correct.  If the owner really objects to
what has been done, then, as the Shulchan Aruch poskens, he is free to tell
the yored, take your trees or whatever it is and go, and then clearly there
will be no payment.  This is whether or not the field is actually one that
is made for planting (following the Rosh and others as understood by the
Beis Yosef). There is no bargaining to go on here.  Even according to the
minority rishonic position, the bargaining will only go on if in fact the
field was really meant for planting anyway.  If it was meant for grain
crops, and certainly if it is a private garden that is not necessarily meant
for anything, I can't see how any bargaining will occur.  And you can
understand the logic of that too - if objectively this field was meant for
planting, then only a fool would object to it being planted (leaving aside
questions of doing the regular worker out of a job).

And if the owner actually rather likes what has been done, but just doesn't
want to pay for it, then yes he will be trying to object both to the payment
and to the reinstatement of the previous situation.  We see that in the
story of Rav in the first piece of gemora I quoted.  Once the owner did
something, by fencing off the trees, to show actually he rather liked them,
then he was liable.

>What happens if the work cannot be undone: eg someone dyed a sweater with
an expensive dye? Netivot Hamishpat holds that the dyer must be paid
(375:(2)). CI disagrees and says that one cannot >be forced to accept a
benefit against his will. Instead the owner swears he doesnt want the
benefit and doesnt pay.

>Conclusion: According to the Netivot the only thing that counts is whether
the owner in fact received a benefit. If he did then he has to pay whether
or not he wanted that benefit.

Question though whether the Netivot's example is davka.  In the case of a
sweater, there is no question that the owner can sell the sweater for more
than he could before, and presumably with that money pay for a cheaper
sweater the old colour.  Now perhaps that particular sweater has sentimental
value, eg knitted by the owner's mother, so a sale and further purchase
might not suit the owner - but that situation would presumably be rare, and
maybe would go to the very idea of benefit.  Would the Netivot still say
what he says if it was not possible by sale and further purchase to put the
owner back in the same position?

> According to CI one pays only for a benefit that one wants and one cannot
force a benefit on someone else and demand payment. How much the payment is
will again be a disagreement among many shitot

But note something here:  the CI requires the owner to *swear* that he
really doesn't want the benefit before he is exempt from paying.  Anybody
who swears to avoid payment when in fact secretly he is pleased, is going to
be over on the issur d'orisa of a shevuas shav.  This is not something that
the owner can just "claim" to avoid paying, unless he wants to put his olam
haba at risk.

> >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.

RZS:

>>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.

I confess I am with RZS here.  The reality is that the halacha does not
treat property rights as being as sacrosanct as does the common law system
that we are used to in places like America and England (and I believe
Israel).  There is an understanding in halacha that underdevelopment can be
a bad thing (notice the eretz yisrael reference) and that as RZS has stated,
if the owner really does derive a benefit, then he should have to pay, even
if he did not request it and it involved trespass onto his land.  The
question might perhaps be, what is a benefit?  Do we determine this
objectively or subjectively.  The CI seems to me to be saying it is really
subjective.  The Neviot is insisting on some level of objective standards -
if matters cannot be reversed, we look to the market and see whether
objectively there is a benefit or not (perhaps batla dato etzel kola adam).

>According to everyone if the owner says before the action that he does not
want the work then he need not pay.  This is explicitly to prevent workers
from entering fields and making a living >against the will of the owners
which would lead to a breakdown in society.

> 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.>>

>The one who enters someone else's house or does work univited in his field
is the rasha.

I'm not sure you are always right.  In many cases he may be - if indeed he
is doing it to generate work for himself that he otherwise does not have,
and/or to extract money out of the owner then yes (although again, if he is
doing it because he or his family is starving, is it worse than begging?  Is
it worse than stealing?).  But think of other cases.  The person who fixes
the eyesore ruin of a house because he cannot bear looking at it when he
goes past, who trims the overgrown hedge that is menacing the sidewalk, or
who plants trees or crops on a field that is meant for planting and can help
provide food for the neighbourhood but where the owner has let it get
overgrown and unsightly, or who removes the snow before it turns to ice and
causes physical hazard.  In a world where property rights are sacrosanct,
and un-neighbourly behaviour and miserliness (or simple laziness and
slovenliness) is regarded as a lesser evil than the violation of such
property rights, then yes such a person is always a rasha.  But once can
very easily take a different world view, and say that the halachic world
view is more balanced and more nuanced.

>The only question is what is the halacha after it already happened. The
commentaries state that one cannot force someone to allow others live in his
empty house.  One does not say "kofin al miday sdom" in this case.

However the empty house is in many ways the extreme case of violation of
property rights.   The mere existence of the phrase "kofin al midas sdom"
indicates that such a concept exists and is applied in lesser cases.  In
English/American common law, there is absolutely no concept of ever forcing
anybody regardless of how much they behave with the midos of sdom.  And it
is in many ways surprising that such a concept should exist - should not at
most it be a question of going lifnin meshuras hadin?  And yet such a
concept exists.

> It is also obvious from SA that they went out of their way to limit this
halacha. Almost every "se-if" in CM 363 befins with "yesh omrim" that
qualify the halacha. Thus, for example, if the >trespasser does minimal
damage to the house he is responsible for the complete rent that this place
goes for and not just the minimal damage that he did. I interpret this
approach as again >trying to limit the rights of outsiders to take over
someone's property even when he doesnt do any damage or even provides an
unrequested benefit.

Or about trying to balance competing principles, where property rights are
important but are not the absolute trump card they are in English/American
law.

>Eli Turkel

Regards
Chana

 From http://tinyurl.com/o9378b4

While there has been considerable recent discussion regarding women 
wearing tefillin, I will not review here the general topic but rather 
focus specifically only the view of the Mishnah Berurah.  I believe 
the view of the Mishnah Berurah has been widely misunderstood due to 
two identical typesetting errors in the text, one in the Mishnah 
Berurah itself and one in the Biur Halacha.  It is not my intent to 
address the normative halacha in this article.

See the above URL for more. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140521/48a1ddd3/attachment-0001.htm>

Bava Kamma 65a

Rav explains that we require a Passuk to know that Keren is paid as per
the stolen items value at the time it was stolen, without the Passuk we
would assume that the Ganev pays as per the items value at the time of
the trial.

the Gemara runs through 4 possibilities
A- the Ganev fattens the beast he stole to make it worth more
B- the Ganev weakens/starves the beast he stole making it worth less
C- market forces raise the stolen beasts value
D- market forces reduce its value

in the first 3 scenarios the Gemara rejects the Limmud of the Passuk in
favour of a Sevara

A- Ana FatimNa VeAt ShakLes?
B- Mah Li KatLa Kula Mah Li Katla Palga?
C- Rabba Paskens TavReh Oi ShasYa pays the higher value bcs actively
   breaking or Shechting is a new Genieva which eclipses the first- and it
   makes sense to apply this argument exclusively when it goes up in value

The following is from today's Hakhel email bulletin.

>A SEFIRAH SUGGESTION: In last week's Perek as 
>well (Avos 4:20), Rebbi Masya Ben Charash 
>teaches: Hevei Makdim Bishlom Kol Adam--initiate 
>a greeting to every person. As the cheit of the 
>students of Rebbi Akiva is Shelo Nahagu Kavod 
>Zeh Lazeh (Yevamos 62B)--we suggest that a clear 
>demonstration of one's desire to improve in his 
>showing the honor due another, would be to take 
>great care to follow the teaching of Rebbi Masya 
>Ben Charash-- Hevei Makdim Bishlom Kol Adam!

I sent the following to Hakhel:

"Does this suggestion apply to men greeting women 
and vice versa?  I think you should clarify this issue."

Let me point out that it says Kol Adam,.  which I 
understand to refer to all human beings,  male, 
female, adult, child,  Jew and gentile.  Indeed, 
the following is from RSRH's commentary on

On Bereshis 2

7 Then God formed man, dust of the ground, and 
breathed into his countenance the breath of life, 
and thus man became a living personality.

What is it that sets man apart from the animal? The living individuality
of the animal depends on earthly matter; like its body, so its soul,
too, was taken from the earth. Not so man. In the creation of man,
only the inert material was taken from the earth; only when God breathed
into him the breath of life did he become a living individual. Herein lies
the nobility and immortality of man, and this is the whole source of his
freedom. That which gives the animal its individuality emanates from
the earth and must eventually return to the earth. Not so that which
makes man a ?living personality.? Man?s preeminence over the animal
is not only in his spirit, but also in his vitality. His vitality is linked not
to his body, but to his spirit. When he received a spirit he received life,
his soul adhering to the spirit. When the spirit departs from the body,
the vital soul is not buried with the remains; for man?s soul is bound
up with his spirit, not his body. This is why his physical survival and
health do not depend on his body alone. Of the many dangers to the
life of an animal, not all are dangers to man. The survival of a man
cannot be predicted with the same degree of accuracy as the survival
of an animal. Adom Yeish lo Mazel (Bava Kamma 2b): there is something in
man that defies prediction. A man?s spirit will sustain him, even if it
appears that all hope is lost; for the spirit sustains life. Who can gauge
the power of an unbroken spirit? Who can calculate how long it can
keep the body alive?

Thus man is composed of two elements that are completely different
from each other. One of these was taken from the earth. But man does
not belong to the earth; rather, the earth ? as its name, Adama, implies
? has been given to man to rule. So, too, man?s body, which is Ahfar min ha
Adama, is subject to man?s control. His true, living, spiritual essence is
not dependent on the body; hence, even while he is physically combined
with the earthly element, he can and should exercise control over the
earthly in him. The Afar, the earthly element, in him cannot be released
from the realm of physical compulsion and is subject to the influence
of earthly factors. But the Nishmas Chaim, which God breathed into man and
which first made man a human being, imparts to man of the dignity
of its source and releases him from all physical compulsion; it grants
him freedom and elevates his body, too, into the realm of freedom.

Man?s body lay inert and lifeless, his countenance open to absorb,
like an animal, the requirements of individual life; and God breathed
into his countenance the breath of life. The spark of life was given to
man through his head, into his countenance. Thus man was distinguished
in his outward appearance, too, from all the creatures in the
world. He is, as a result, a complete contrast to the plant. A plant?s
existence depends on the earth ? below. An animal?s life depends on
its heart ? the center. A man?s life depends on his head ? the crown;
his life depends on his spirit. Man looks upward; all his power is from
above ? when he hopes, when he anticipates, when he thinks. The
spark of life was breathed into his countenance. This spark bears man,
and is what keeps him upright: with the disappearance of consciousness
he falls.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140520/ed1cf574/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


**************************************

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.)