Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 170

Tue, 23 Dec 2014

• 1. eating holy food (Eli Turkel)
• 2. December 31 at night (Rich, Joel)
• 3. [BHHJ] The Aftermath of Eric Gardner's Chokehold Death (Micha Berger)
• 4. pure oil (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: pure oil (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: pure oil (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: pure oil (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: pure oil (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: pure oil (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: [BHHJ] The Aftermath of Eric Gardner's Chokehold Death (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. Listening to multiple women sing in unison (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Rav Chisda/Yechezkeil (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Escorting the Queen (Kenneth Miller)
• 14. Practicing Law within the parameters of Halacha - Audio (Prof. Levine)

http://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yevamot-69-sanctified-
meal
by Rabbi Jay Kelman on the Daily Daf - Torah in Motion (Yevamot 69)

Eating *terumah* carries with it a certain amount of risk. But risk is
part and parcel of all that is holy. One cannot grow if one does not take
chances. It is a privilege to eat sanctified food. Sadly, the privilege
of eating *terumah* no longer exists, and even under optimal conditions,
it may only be eaten by a *kohen* and his family. Yet today we all have
the *zechut*, the tremendous opportunity, to eat food sanctified with
the holiness of the *shmitta* year. Many are afraid to eat such foods,
nervous about the technical details of such and the care that must be
taken. But after 2,000 years, we have merited to be able to eat such
food--to imbue our pallets with the holiness of the land. And one need
not be a *kohen* to eat such. All one has to do is go shopping in Israel
and purchase those foods endowed with the sweet taste of *shmitta*[

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Moshe has a tshuva allowing in a case of need for a wedding to take
place erev a "minor" fast day because IIRC it is a machloket in a drabbanan
if the day starts the night before for this purpose.  I haven't seen anyone
mention this as an issue for the upcoming 12/31 into asarah btevet night
for those folks who normally mark the beginning of a new fiscal year with a
friendly gathering. Has anyone seen or heard anything on the topic?
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/20141218/4f88ec01/attachment-0001.htm>

From http://www.thehalachacen
ter.org/journal-links/5775/bereishis/miketz/the-aftermath-of-eric-gardners-
chokehold-death.php
or <http://j.mp/1wnIkzR>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

                         The Bais HaVaad Halacha Center
           The Center for the Study and Practice of Monetary Halacha
      THE BAIS HAVAAD HALACHA JOURNAL: Volume 5775 Issue X Parshas Miketz

The Aftermath of Eric Gardner's Chokehold Death
Are Police Above the Law?
by Rabbi Micha Cohn

The death of Eric Gardner, resulting from a police officer's chokehold,
has raised much public concern over the use of excessive force by
police. Unlike the case in Fergusson Missouri, this case was not about
killing for self-defense. It was about the use of excessive force by
police that unintentionally caused death. In this article we will examine
if law enforcement officials have a dispensation for unintentionally
causing death, and what the parameters are.

The Mishnah in Tractate Makkos (8a) exempts a Shliach Bais Din,
an emissary of the court, from going into exile for unintentional
homicide. The agent of Bais Din was performing a mitzvah, and as the
Mishnah explains, there is a dispensation from exile for accidental
homicide that occurs while performing a mitzvah. The Rishonim dispute
in what capacity did the agent of Bais Din cause death. According to the
Rambam (Rotzeiach 5,6), the emissary of the court was forcing a person to
appear before Bais Din. Rashi and the Ra'avad understand that the Shliach
Bais Din was administering makkos (flogging), and unintentionally gave
more than the prescribed amount.

In 1830, Rabbi Moshe Sofer, the Chasam Sofer, was asked to give direction
after a tragic incident (Shu"t Chasam Sofer OC 177). A young housemaid
had fainted and her mistress panicked. She ran to get some whisky to
help revive her. In the rush the mistress mistook a bottle of petrol for
whisky. Thinking it was whiskey, she poured the petrol into the mouth
of the housemaid killing her. The mistress turned to the Chasam Sofer
to instruct her as to what form of atonement (Kaparah) she needs for
this terrible mishap.

The Chasam Sofer cites the abovementioned Mishnah as his primary
source. He raises an important question regarding the opinion of the
Ra'avad. If the emissary of the court gave too many makkos why should he
be exempt from punishment? Rabbi Sofer explains, the emissary must have
become confused with the number and thought he had not given the proper
amount when he actually had. Although he the actual hit that killed the
person was not a mitzvah, since the beginning of the emissary's actions
were a mitzvah and sanctioned by Bais Din, he still has this dispensation.

Based on his understanding of the Ra'avad, the Chasam Sofer offers
insight into this incident. When the mistress ran to get whiskey, she
was clearly involved in a mitzvah, and is therefore comparable to the
emissary of Bais Din. Therefore, even if she could have possibly been
more careful she has the same dispensation as the emissary of the court
who became confused and gave too many makkos. The Chasam Sofer concludes
that she is not considered responsible for the death of the housemaid,
but she should do some form of teshuvah because this terrible mishap
happened at her hands.

A contemporary ruling from Rabbi Shmuel Wosner (Shevet HaLevi 4,151)
about dental malpractice illustrates this point. According to Halacha,
a doctor has a similar dispensation as an agent of the court. Therefore,
if he accidentally injures in the course of treatment he is not obligated
to pay. Nonetheless, Rabbi Wosner ruled that a dentist who accidentally
drilled the wrong tooth is fully obligated to pay. He explains that the
doctor's favorable position in halacha is only when he damages in the
actual course of treatment. Drilling the wrong tooth is not considered in
the course of treatment and he has the same responsibilities as a layman.

From these sources we can learn that an agent of Bais Din, a doctor,
or law enforcement official that causes damage or death in the course
of doing his legitimate duties may not be held liable. However, this
is only if the initial action that lead to harm was justified. In the
case of the Chasam Sofer , the mistress had legitimate reason to get
whisky to revive the girl, as it was apparently considered a proper way
to revive a person who fainted. Conversely, if she should have ran to
get a doctor and instead decided to use whiskey, then the Chasam Sofer
might have held her liable for mistakenly bringing petrol. Similarly,
in the case of Rabbi Wosner, the dentist never should have drilled that
tooth and is not considered one who is `involved in a mitzvah'. On the
other hand, if while working on the proper tooth the dentist drilled
too deep Rabbi Wosner would seemingly rule more leniently.

These same concepts could be applied about the use of force by
law enforcement officials. Similar to the emissary of Bais Din, law
enforcement officials should have a favorable halachic status if they
unintentionally caused death but only if they were following proper
procedures. Therefore, if death accidentally occurred while the officer
was using an appropriate form of force, even if he could have been more
careful, the dispensation of mitzvah should apply. However, if the officer
had no permission to use that form of force in a given situation, he loses
this dispensation and is fully responsible for an inadvertent homicide.

see
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Firs
t-pure-olive-oil-produced-in-2000-years-says-Temple-Institute-385250


One requirement for the production process was that no fertilizer be used
in the growing of the olives themselves, so the Institute needed to find
olives grown organically.


why?
I thought then when attached to the ground the olives cannot become tameh


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141220/ff7a42c6/attachment.htm>

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 08:27:36PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/
: First-pure-olive-oil-produced-in-2000-years-says-Temple-Institute-385250<
: /a>

:> One requirement for the production process was that no fertilizer be used
:> in the growing of the olives themselves, so the Institute needed to find
:> olives grown organically.

: why?
: I thought then when attached to the ground the olives cannot become tameh

And on a more balebatishe note... Why would the chemicals used in
artificial fertilizers be *more* of a problem than organic zevel?

I am thinking the problem isn't tum'ah. But what would it be?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

My understanding is that both words "tahor" and "pure" are ambiguous. They
can mean either halachically not tamay, or physically unadulterated. 
Perhaps someone feels that only organic oil would be chemically or
botanically "pure".

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

On 12/21/2014 08:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 08:27:36PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>: I thought then when attached to the ground the olives cannot become tameh

Where did the article say this requirement had to do with tum'ah?

> And on a more balebatishe note... Why would the chemicals used in
> artificial fertilizers be *more* of a problem than organic zevel?

Who said it was?   The article says no fertilizer, not no artificial
fertilizer.

> I am thinking the problem isn't tum'ah. But what would it be?

Menachos 8:3

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:55am EST, Zev Sero wrote:
: Who said it was?   The article says no fertilizer, not no artificial
: fertilizer.

But their solution is:
    One requirement for the production process was that no fertilizer
    be used in the growing of the olives themselves, so the institute
    needed to find olives grown organically. One such organic olive
    grove was found in the town of Ramot in the Golan Heights.

If being organic solves the problem, then it seems the fertilizers they
are referring to are the ones only non-organic farming would use. Sakh
hakol, there isn't enough precision in the article to make diyuqim either
way; the reisha implies one thing, the seifa another.

:> I am thinking the problem isn't tum'ah. But what would it be?

: Menachos 8:3

The Bartenura says the mishnah is about omer and 2 halechem in particular,
and he has two peshatim on "mibeis hazevalim".

1- A field that needs fertilization, because perhaps it won't get
sufficiently fertilized. No problem using zevel, only with fields that
require it. Organic vs modern methodology doesn't enter it to it.

2- Iy nami: because zevel might rob the olives of some of their taste. I
have no idea if artificial fertilizers do better or worse in this
regard. And, taste is more obviously an issue WRT qorbanos that get eaten;
what he says about omer and the 2 halechem doesn't mean that oil for
lighting the menorah (where no one is tastig the result) requires it too.

Sof kol sof, bedi'eved, "ve'im heivi kasher".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 12/21/2014 01:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:55am EST, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Who said it was?   The article says no fertilizer, not no artificial
> : fertilizer.
>
> But their solution is:
>      One requirement for the production process was that no fertilizer
>      be used in the growing of the olives themselves, so the institute
>      needed to find olives grown organically. One such organic olive
>      grove was found in the town of Ramot in the Golan Heights.
>
> If being organic solves the problem, then it seems the fertilizers they
> are referring to are the ones only non-organic farming would use. Sakh
> hakol, there isn't enough precision in the article to make diyuqim either
> way; the reisha implies one thing, the seifa another.

The article says no fertilizer must be used.  It doesn't say "organic"
is *enough*, just that it's necessary.  All "inorganic" crops are
fertilized, and therefore pasul lechatchila; so are some "organic" ones,
but not all.

> :> I am thinking the problem isn't tum'ah. But what would it be?
>
> : Menachos 8:3
>
> The Bartenura says the mishnah is about omer and 2 halechem in particular,
> and he has two peshatim on "mibeis hazevalim".

Wrong mishneh.  I wrote 8:3, not 8:2.


> 1- A field that needs fertilization, because perhaps it won't get
> sufficiently fertilized. No problem using zevel, only with fields that
> require it. Organic vs modern methodology doesn't enter it to it.

If a field is fertilized, obviously it needed it.  Nobody wastes
money and labour fertilizing a field that doesn't require it.


> 2- Iy nami: because zevel might rob the olives of some of their taste. I
> have no idea if artificial fertilizers do better or worse in this
> regard. And, taste is more obviously an issue WRT qorbanos that get eaten;
> what he says about omer and the 2 halechem doesn't mean that oil for
> lighting the menorah (where no one is tastig the result) requires it too.

Mishneh 8:3 says clearly that it is required.

> Sof kol sof, bedi'eved, "ve'im heivi kasher".

Yes, the requirement is only lechatchila.

R' Micha Berger forwarded an article to us, which discussed recent cases by
looking when halacha does or does not assign blame for an accidental death.
The article brings two cases. Please see the original article for details.
His summary concludes that:

> an agent of Bais Din, a doctor, or law enforcement official that
> causes damage or death in the course of doing his legitimate
> duties may not be held liable. However, this is only if the
> initial action that lead to harm was justified. In the case of
> the Chasam Sofer, the mistress had legitimate reason to get
> whisky to revive the girl, as it was apparently considered a
> proper way to revive a person who fainted. Conversely, if she
> should have ran to get a doctor and instead decided to use
> whiskey, then the Chasam Sofer might have held her liable for
> mistakenly bringing petrol. Similarly, in the case of Rabbi
> Wosner, the dentist never should have drilled that tooth and
> is not considered one who is 'involved in a mitzvah'. On the
> other hand, if while working on the proper tooth the dentist
> drilled too deep Rabbi Wosner would seemingly rule more leniently.

I do not see the distinction that he is making between the two cases.

He seems to explain that girl's "initial action" was the action of going to
get help. If the help she sought was proper, then she has begun the
mitzvah, and is therefore protected by halacha against mistakes. So since
she went to get whisky, she is not liable even if she accidentally took the
petrol.

Why doesn't this logic protect the dentist? I would think that when he
reached for his drill, that was exactly the same sort of "initial action"
as done by the girl: The girl ran to get whiskey but then took the petrol;
the dentist took his drill but then drilled the wrong tooth. What's the
difference?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Apple's Crazy New Gizmo
Forget the iPhone 6. Next hit Apple product leaked. (see picture)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/549759eb3daa659eb6524st02vuc

 From http://tinyurl.com/m97be25

In summation the overwhelming majority of poskim [including: the Beer 
Sheva, the Beer Yehuda on Chareidim, the Steipler Gaon zt"l (cited in 
Journal Ohel Moshe 1992), the Shevet Halevi (4:197), the Tzitz 
Eliezer, Badei Hashulchan (Nidah 199:119), Chelek Levi, Kinyan Torah 
(85), Avnei Yashfei (2:5), Ishei Yisroel (55:32), and Netai Gavriel 
(Yichud page 348)] maintain that a man may not listen to many women 
sing in unison, even if they are singing Zemiros.

See the above URL for more on this topic.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141222/d44b2753/attachment.htm>

Rav Chisda was a third generation amora.  In the 3 cases where the gemara
questions learning a seeming torah requirement from a source in Nach (and
each case is a quote from Yechezkeil), it quotes Rav Chisda  ending with 
"gemara gmirei,vata Yechezkeilv'asmecha akra" (But, according to your
argument, what of R. Hisda's statement: This matter15 we
have learnt not from the Torah of Moses, but from the words of Ezekiel b. Buzi: No alien,
uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary?16 Who taught this
before Ezekiel came? Rather must you say that it was traditionally handed down and when Ezekiel
came he strengthened it by attaching it to Scripture; in our case [here] too it was a traditional
teaching and Ezekiel strengthened it by attaching it to Scripture.)

Question- this issue arises in many places in the Gemara - why is the
question only raised by quotes from Yechezkeil and why is the answer quoted
from the 3rd generation?
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141222/efbf07bc/attachment.htm>

In the thread "Insights Into Halacha: The Chanuka Candle / Havdalah
Hullabaloo", R' Yitzchok Levine sent us a link to an article which asks
whether - on the Motzaei Shabbos of Chanuka - we should light the menorah
first, or say havdala first. Among the points raised in that article, is
this comment, referring to the Taz:

> Additionally, he argues, once one lights Chanuka candles on Motzei
> Shabbos, he is showing that he intrinsically already ended Shabbos;
> if so what further gain can there be by delaying Havdalah further?[7]

The footnote reads:

> [7]The Elya Rabba (O.C. 681, 1) "answers up" this rhetorical question
> of the Taz and Pri Chadash, explaining that until one actually makes
> Havdalah, even if he already ended Shabbos and started doing Melacha,
> remnants of the holiness of Shabbos remain.

Can I infer from this Elya Rabba that if someone has ended Shabbos, AND
started doing melacha, AND said Havdala Al Hakos, then NO remnants of the
holiness of Shabbos remain? Are there any poskim who would say that in such
circumstances, some remnants of the holiness of Shabbos DO remain?

The reason I am asking this, is because of a question that I've had for a
very long time. I'm pretty sure I've asked it here before, and I apologize
if my repetition is annoying. But I can't remember ever getting an answer,
and I'm hoping that this reference to the Elya Rabba might help.

My question is: If all remnants of Shabbos are gone in the above
circumstances, then in what way are we "escorting the Queen" at the Melaveh
Malka? In my entire life, I've never been to a Melaveh Malka which didn't
feel like a celebration that Shabbos is finally over.

If an actual, physical, human queen would visit our town, surely we might
have a banquet in her honor at her arrival, during her stay, and just prior
to her departure. But I daresay that no one would have any sort of
celebration after she has already left. Here's how I envision a proper
Melaveh Malka: It should begin on Shabbos afternoon, when the Queen is
still among us, and should continue until she leaves.  Even better, we
could be like an audience that demands an encore, and lovingly delay her
departure by continuing the banquet for some time beyond her schedule,
i.e., past the "official" zman of Motzaei Shabbos.

I anticipate that some may try to answer my question on the Elya Rabba with
something like: "Even after saying Havdala and doing melacha, it can still
be considered as 'escorting the Queen', because it is still Motzaei
Shabbos, and you could have kept Shabbos going if you wanted to, and
besides, there might actually be others in town who haven't ended Shabbos
yet, and in that sense, Shabbos is not yet totally gone."

I *might* understand that, but *only* if the Melaveh Malka had a Shabbosdik
atmosphere to it. In such a case, recreating the Shabbos ambience would
show that although Shabbos is over and gone, we miss it, and are trying to
hold on to it. But I don't recall ever seeing such a Melaveh Malka. Rather,
new lights are lit, food is cooked fresh, and music is often played. These
are things which we would never do on Shabbos. Doing them after Shabbos
cannot be an attempt to recreate the Shabbos atmosphere. I see it as a
celebration of our permission to do melacha.

These thoughts lead me to wonder if the true purpose of this seudah might
have little or nothing to do with Shabbos. Could it be that the true
purpose is to nourish that bone that doesn't decompose, or some other
purpose, and "escorting the Queen" is merely a story for the masses?

Alternatively, could it be that I have totally and fundamentally failed to understand the metaphor of "escorting the Queen"? What am I missing?

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/TGL3131/54989fdd790ee1fdd3885st02vuc

<http://businesshalacha.com/en/audio-seminar/contract-halacha-101>
Contract Halacha 101: An Overview Of The Halachic Requirements Of Contracts.
A discussion of the important principles of contract law, including 
Asmacte, Kinyan, Meshate and other halachic concepts required for a 
valid contract.

Presenter:
Rav Moshe Hillel Kaufman
Dayan, Bais Horaah of Far Rockaway and Five Towns; Author, "Money: 
The Bottom Line" (Feldheim).

--


Ribbis And Contracts.
An examination of common Ribbis issues in contracts, leases, 
operating agreements and other legal documents, and a discussion of 
practical solutions.

Presenter:
Rav Avrohom Moshe Lewanoni
Author, "Mishnat Ribit" (Brooklyn, NY 1991), Torah V'daas Kollel

--


Halachic Issues In Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreements.
An analysis of the halachic impediments to non-compete and 
non-disclosure agreements and the requirements to ensure that such 
agreements are enforceable in Bais Din.

Presenter:
Rav Chaim Kohn
Dean, Business Halacha Institute; Dayan KAJ
Business Halacha Institute | 1-877-845-8455 |

Businesshalacha.com |b...@businesshalacha.com |
Business Halacha Institute | 1937 ocean Avenue | Brooklyn | NY | 11230



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



_______________________________________________
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.)