Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 10

Mon, 19 Jan 2015

• 1. Re: Metzitza on Shabbos (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi, Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Bris in the midbor (Isaac Balbin)
• 4. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Avi Goldstein)
• 6. Re: Metzitza on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Metzitza on Shabbos (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Re: measurement error (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: kiddush Hashem (elazar teitz)
• 11. kiddush hashem (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: kiddush Hashem (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Bris in the midbor (Dr Isaac Balbin)
• 14. Listening to a Rav HaMuvhak (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Rich, Joel)

Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote:

> I have proposed that since we now know that applying suction
> provides no medical benefit, it is prohibited on Shabbos since
> one is causing a wound which is an Issur DeOraysa where there
> is no medical need.

I seems to me that it would be more accurate to say that the current medical experts feel that applying suction provides no medical benefit.

This would put this situation in the same category as other situations
where Chazal worried about things that current medical experts are not
worried about. So now we can ask which view should prevail. It seems that
RMR feels it proper to be strict about hilchos Shabbos and skip the
metzitzah. Others feel it proper to be strict about the medical issues, and
apply the suction even on Shabbos.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
High School Yearbooks
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Reminisce & Buy a Reprint Today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54bbe6633d5eb66633411st02vuc

RMB:

<<"Shabbos hi miliz'oq" makes sense to you in general? How does saying 
"I know this is inappropriate" make it any more appropriate to make a 
personal baqashah on Shabbos?>>

See Meor Einayim Parshas Devarim

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24871&;st=&pgnum=201&hilite=

around halfway down in the right hand column.

I used to think that citing homiletical reasoning in a halachic argument 
was cheating, but now I wonder if it has a Rawlsian justification.

David Riceman

Thanks R Micha and R Velvel
I would like to note that Pshat isn't the only way to understand what was
going on. It is one important way to understand the Pesukim but I haven't
heard that Mesorah is equivalent to Simple Pshat.
What we have here is a Mesorah for what happened for a LONG period of time.
That shedim  don't materialise through a non ideal wind isn't something
that any of us can conclude. The fact is there was a Mesorah that knew the
Pesukim very well and which considered Milah to be Milah plus Periyah.
Lehalocho, which is a different consideration its is a machlokes acharonim
for example whether on Shabbos you can give the kibud of Periyah to a
second person or not. If you hold that Periyah is Etzem part of Milah then
it is just as needed. If it is not we should only allow Milah WITHOUT Priya
on Shabbos bichlal and do the Priya later. These days MOST do it in one
action but SOME still separate the kibudim.

It is a fact that they didn't do Milah based on the Pasuk. What does that
mean precisely? It would seem that there had to be RUCHNIYESDIKE
'interference' in Practical 'weather conditions' which precluded every
single boy or child or man from having a bris over such a long period. Now,
where I stand, that means supernatural manifesting itself into conditions
which effectively rendered mila botel umevutal. Yes, one can
microscopically look at each case and day and time and say 'too dangerous'
Halacha (not Novi) prohibits entering into even a safek sakana. There would
be a chiyuv for each person to go to Beis din every day and ask can I be
Mal today! Does anyone think this was going on. Is it related by Chazal as
a Mesorah we have? I don't think so. There was a suspension of the Mitzva
the way I understand it. Whether that be Mila or Mila plus Priyo. Now to
make a suspension for such a period of time is anyone seriously suggesting
that the Novi himself didn't declare a horoas sh
 ooh of sorts? 

Perhaps more to the point, it makes no sense to me to learn from THESE
years of supernatural interference in 'nature' any halochos which don't
have as their Mekor somewhere else.

Who will argue with the science we have today about an issue that would
kill the next baby? Nobody. At the same time I think only literalists and
Hungarians would insist on no Mila for a second child if medicine provided
a reason why the first died and the second had nothing to fear. I know of
families where most of the kids have an issue which precludes an eight day
and Mila must take place months and months later often with an accompanying
corrective operation. But even within those families there are boys who
don't carry the gene? that is the marker for these conditions and I have
yet to see a Posek who says wait a year like his brother(s) 'just in case
of the Sakono. Why not? Because HaShem allowed us in certain cases to
refine Sakono and define it and in other cases even a safek Sakono IS the
Psak 

???? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?

> On 19 Jan 2015, at 12:55 am, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 03:21:30PM +0800, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
> : Is a Ruchniyusdike temporal thing anything more than requiring a
> : horoas shooh?
> 
> : Maybe Moshe should have pleaded so they could do Priya or whatever?
> 
> : shedim don't somehow fit in my rationalist world
> 
> Let's just talk theoretically for a moment:
> But in any case, given a metaphysics in which includes connections from
> this world in a manner other than halakhah... Identifying a spiritual risk
> isn't necessary the creation of new law. A navi could see the spiritual
> risk other than halachic, and then a poseiq could apply existing law.
> 
> That was what I tried to relay in my prior post.
> 
> Second theoretical point:
> The question isn't whether sheidim fit in your world, it's whether they're
> part of the shitah you're trying to understand. That's a problem when
> holding like an opinion many / most amora'ei Bavel did not. You have to
> keep "what would I say" and "what would the gemara say" distinct.
> 
> Now, speaking on our particular instance -- milah in the midbar:
> 
> Metaphysics isn't involved there. The gemara gives two explanations why
> they didn't mahl their children:
> 1- the hustle and bustle of travel (Yevamos 71b)
> 2- vei'bei's eima: there was no ru'ach tzefonis (72a)
> 
> Rashi defines ru'ach tzefonis as a north wind, and not some northern
> spirit, because he says it's at just the right temperature. On Yehoshua
> 5:2 repeats the gemara's second reason only, saying that they therefore
> didn't have a day pleasant enough for milah.
> 
> So both possibilities are physical medical concerns.
> 
> Zev asked how we know that there was a pesaq to do so. The gemara's tenor
> is agreement with their decision, as they work to suggest justifications.
> Ralbag on Yehoshua 5:3 uses the word saqanah.
> 
> OTOH, the idea that Levi is praised "uverisekha yintzoro" for giving their
> sons berisim in the midbar is a Sifri (ad loc; Devarim 33:9). Elaborated
> by Rashi ad loc.
> 
> I do not know how to be meyasheiv the two Rashis.
> 
> But the gemara's assuption that being more risky than usual IS reason
> to not do a beris is there. (Whether that's valid or not in the case
> of the midbar, aside.)
> 
> 
> Totally unrelated point, going back to the original topic of metzitzah
> bepeh:
> What is also, there, though, is that the gemara refers to peri'ah
> as the sof. See on Yavamos 71a, 8 lines from the bottom, the point
> made right before the discussion midbar.
> 
>    Ela lav leperi'ah.
>    Umah "sheinis"?
>    La'aqushei sof milah letechilas milah.
> 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
> mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
> http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
> Fax: (270) 514-1507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150119/ab024b29/attachment.htm>

On 01/18/2015 08:29 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:

> This made me realize that there's another common practice which causes a very similar problem. I had posted:
>
>> By comparison, the Mi Sheberach can be seen less as a request,
>> and more as a declaration of faith: "He Who blessed the avos
>> *will* bless and heal this choleh, because of the tzedaka which
>> he/we will donate..."
>
> I have seen many shuls which change this text, and even the ArtScroll
> offers this idea in a footnote. For fear of obligating people to give
> donations that they might not ever give, they change the last phrase
> to "because we are praying for him..."
>
> The intention to avoid unfulfilled obligations is commendable, but I
> concede that the alternate text makes my entire post inapplicable.
> Including the phrase "because we are praying for him" makes it
> impossible to claim that this is anything but a bakasha.

It also makes little sense.  What does "because we are praying for him"
*mean*?  We've already done the praying; the "ba'avur" clause is a
reason why the prayer should be answered, and when you fill it in with
"because we're asking", it's the equivalent of "for no particular reason".
That doesn't strengthen the request, it weakens it, so surely you're
better off omitting the clause altogether.

Regarding the true translation of "barzel," I know nothing about metals,
but the following link may be helpful: www.balashon.com/2006/08/barzel.html.

Avi Goldstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150118/9e810b2e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 04:58:42PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: This would put this situation in the same category as other situations
: where Chazal worried about things that current medical experts are not
: worried about. So now we can ask which view should prevail. It seems
: that RMR feels it proper to be strict about hilchos Shabbos and skip the
: metzitzah. Others feel it proper to be strict about the medical issues,
: and apply the suction even on Shabbos.

Not 100%... For some, the argument for MbP -- whether direct or via
pipette -- is that metzitzah is part of the milah. This is why they are
not following the CS in allowing bloodletting via a sponge. For that
matter, the CS also appears to treat metzitzah as being part of the
chiyuv, and not only medical. (Even ifthe gemara also ascribes to it
a medical function.)

As Zev pointed out an iteration or two back on this topic, there are
reasons al pi qabbalah for metzitzah to be bepeh, since the eitz hadaas
was eaten bepeh.

I doubt RMR gives much weight to the Zohar as a source, but most of
the acharonim he's disagreeing with do. And many invoke it here. The
CS mentions its existence as well, but does not feel it is of import
compared to the medical threat raised by his sho'el.

The CS, while not requiring that metzitzah is bepeh, also appears to
take it for granted that metzitzah isn't entirely medical.

He darshens the word metzitzah by comparison to "mitz apayim" (Mishlei
30:31) and "vayamatz tal min hagizah" (Shofetim 6:38), and cites Rashi,
Radaq and IE on these pesuqim. He concludes that metzitzah means drawing
blood from other areas.

This kind of analysis wouldn't fit metzitzah being simply the term Chazal
chose for a medical step.

To further complicate things, even if we say that metzitzah is part of
the chiyuv, or that MbP is, or that MbP by direct contact (not a pipette)
is, it would "only" about fulfilling the chiyuv lekhat-chilah. Bedieved,
the baby is still no longer an areil, can eat qorban pesach, etc...

Then the question is whether metzitzah is
1- actually is part of the mitzvah,
2- a better way to do the mitzvah (perhaps because of hamtaqas hadin
   a"y hapeh),
3- entirely medical based on Galen's theories about bloodletting.

With varying degrees of justification of risk depending on where one
stands.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 01:29:45PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: The intention to avoid unfulfilled obligations is commendable,
: but I concede that the alternate text makes my entire post
: inapplicable. Including the phrase "because we are praying for him"
: makes it impossible to claim that this is anything but a bakasha.

I thought it's "because the entire kahal is praying for him". IOW,
invoking our unity as a zekhus.

But how is "because xyz will give tzedaqah in his merit" any more or less
of a baqashah. I mean, if you want to say it's in lashon asid rather than
tzivui, then why any "ba'avur"? And if you figure out a way to be at peace
with "The One Who blessed ... will -- as a prediction of the future --
bless and Heal ... because", then why does the change in because matter?

And, if it were in lashon asid, how could we continue saying it after
a mi'ut deshechiach of the people we daven for r"l don't heal?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Not 100%... For some, the argument for MbP -- whether direct or
> via pipette -- is that metzitzah is part of the milah. ...

Yes, of course. You've said this many times. The point that I was making
was that even according to RMR's view that medical needs are the ONLY
reason for metzitzah, the fact that *modern* medicine might see no value in
it does not necessarily render it an act of chilul Shabbos in the eyes of
halacha.

There are many cases where Chazal's view of medicine differs from that of
today's physicians, and while RMR seems to feel that Chazal's concerns can
be ignored, there are poskim who disagree.

The fact that there may be non-medical reasons for metzitzah is important
during the week, but RMR seems willing to ignore them for Shabbos, and
that's why I chose to focus on Chazal's *medical* concerns.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
What's your flood risk?
Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54bc205f59359205f4dacst01vuc

RAM:

<<Shuls which reach the Shma after the calculated SZKS (or before it, 
for maariv) are presuming that their congregants are careful to have 
said it individually in the proper time.>>

But don't forget, we're talking about how halachos change.  It's true 
that in every shul I've been in which has a late minyan on Shabbos 
morning, someone on Friday night says "don't forget to say Shma before 
you come to shul."  But I've never seen a poll about how effective that 
announcement is, and I suspect that people like those of us in this 
mailing list, who actually know when SZKS is, are a small minority of 
attenders of shul.

Thirty years from now, when lots of people have childhood memories of 
going to shul at 9 AM in summer when SZKS is 8:00 AM, but don't recall 
those Friday night announcements, will you still think that there's a 
consensus about SZKS? Will that be part of the halachic process?

David Riceman

>>> He might be "a qadosh", but he didn't necessarily die "al qiddush
>>>hasheim". The latter would require his widow to remain unmarried, and
>>> no one suggested that of Shoah survivors.

>> There is no such halacha...

>You're mistaken. See Otzar haPosqim EH siman 1, end.

     That there is an opinion of one chacham (Sefer Hamiktzo'os, whose
author I have been unable to ascertain), not mentioned in Shulchan Aruch,
does not make it a halacha.  And even that source agrees that im niseis lo
teitzei.

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150119/4d5ad805/attachment-0001.htm>

<<He might be "a qadosh", but he didn't necessarily die "al qiddush
hasheim". The latter would require his widow to remain unmarried, and
no one suggested that of Shoah survivors.>>

I looked again at the notes of R. Zilberstein. His words are (translated)
RSYE was asked if R Grinbaum who was killed by an Arab in Switzerland
because he was Jewish is considred as "met al kiddush hashem" . RYSE
answerwed "certainly" . He later said that should add the words"kadosh" on
the tombstone.

So it seems that RSYE doesnt distinguish between kadosh and die "al qiddush
hasheim"

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150119/ec2198ee/attachment.htm>

On 01/18/2015 05:02 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote:
>
>  Sefer Hamiktzo'os, whose author I have been unable to ascertain)

Apparently Rabbenu Chanan'el.  And quoted by the Sefer Haparnes
(which I think is the psakim of R Meir MeRothenburg), and by the
Or Zarua (as quoted by his son R Chaim).   So a respectable opinion,
but still only one opinion, and I don't think it can possibly be a
psak halacha.  At most it's the Rach's suggestion or recommendation,
or at most a takana he made in Kairouan and hoped other communities
would adopt.  The only one who suggests a reason is Machane Chayim,
who I think is a grandson or great-grandson of the Chasam Sofer,
and the reason he suggests would apply to anyone whom we know to
have been a tzadik.

Meir Rabi asks me to bring ?proof" of Shedim. Meir, you simply CANNOT conclude any Halocho from this episode.
For a start, if it was a ?normal? Sakono, why did Shevet Levi HAVE a Bris Mila in this ?physically" dangerous environment?
Secondly, remember the Pasuk in Koheles 11:2 the Mila in the Midbar was on
day SEVEN. Only when they reached the Kedusha of SHMINI which is in Eretz
HaKodesh, did it revert to the higher level (as per Maharal and others of
8)

Check the Psikta D?Rav Cahana on Ten Chelek Leshiva

The Ruach Tzofnis seemed to avoid Leviim? Interesting wind?

What sort of Ruach do you think it was and who created it to affect *certain* classes of B?nei Yisrael.

How were they Makriv Korbonos as Arelim!

When the Ananei Hakovod which protected them, disappeared, the Ruach Tzfonis ?acted". What was this act? How?
Was it paranormal (e.g. through a Shed/Malach) that was careful not to bother Leviim?

By the way, see Brachos 3b. This Ruach was not normal and connected to Dovid Hamelechs Kinor. Funny style of connection?

Anyway, Ein Makom LeHaarich. It?s all discussed by Meforshim. You don?t learn halochos from that period in my opinion.

Indeed, Hatzivi Loch Tziyunim fits beautifully. It was practice time for when they went into the real Gasgmiyus and Ruchniyus of Eretz Yisrael.

<<What isn't a halachic approach in my opinion is a LOR who shops opinions
from a range of important Rabonim and then decides for himsel>>

I understood that RMF published his teshuvot explicitly so one could read
them and then decide if he agrees. He writes that one should NOT follow his
psak simply because he says so without understanding the reasons

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150119/24204611/attachment.htm>

<<I have seen many shuls which change this text, and even the ArtScroll
offers this idea in a footnote. For fear of obligating people to give
donations that they might not ever give, they change the last phrase to
"because we are praying for him>>

I heard from RYBS that saying "because we are praying from them" is
meaningless and only giving charity is meaninful.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150119/f43c6783/attachment.htm>

<<I have seen many shuls which change this text, and even the
ArtScroll offers this idea in a footnote. For fear of obligating people to
give donations that they might not ever give, they change the last phrase
to "because we are praying for him>>

I heard from RYBS that saying "because we are praying from them" is meaningless and only giving charity is meaninful.

--
IIRC it was that it was in the category of negative  iyun tfila (see brachot 55a)

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/20150119/1a764a9e/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.)