Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 13

Fri, 23 Jan 2015

• 1. FW: Beit Yosef's Algorithm (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos ()
• 3. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Marty Bluke)
• 4. Metzitza on Shabbos, Beris in the Midbar (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Daat Torah? (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Toah Wisdom Eclipses Modern Medical Wisdom - Beris on Shabbos (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 7. Re: Metzitza on Shabbos, Beris in the Midbar (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Toah Wisdom Eclipses Modern Medical Wisdom - Beris on Shabbos (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: Metzitza on Shabbos, Beris in the Midbar (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Toah Wisdom Eclipses Modern Medical Wisdom - Beris on Sha bbos (Kenneth Miller)
• 12. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Zev Sero)

I thought that the BY's head-count was not on the pesaq level, but on
the sugya level. 2 out of 3 authorities' theoretical bases, not pesaqim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Yes, that thought did cross my mind. One would have to read the 
introduction to the S?A stating ?shebemakom shshnayim maskimim ldaat
acahat??to mean sugya level . However if you think about how these
authorities state the law, they don't always (often?) tell you their theory
 underlying the sugya and there can be multiple understandings of how they
got to that result. Also how does this work for cross shas theories (e.g.
what is the status of halacha moshe msinai) when the results are not
Boolean because more than one underlying theory must be applied in the
case. Thus each of the 3 may have differing priorities of for three shas
wide rules and unless you knew for sure which they were applying where, you
would get inconsistent results.  Not that you couldn?t work that out with
some algorithm as well, but it certainly makes the goal of not adding your
own taanot and rayot to the mix (as was the goal of using an algorithmic
approach)

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/20150120/2763d3d0/attachment.htm>

 

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> A problem with translating barzel as  iron is that the Torah was given in
> the Bronze Age. So to understand the  prohibition as being limits to
> iron and steel would be to believe that  HQBH was warning Betzalel's
> work crew not to use tools they didn't have  the technology to make 
anyway.

 

RMB also wrote:  
>Even if iron was known, it certainly
>wasn't the primary metal  used in weaponry. Why would Hashem identify
>iron with killing more than  the metals that were more commonly used?


R' Zev Sero  wrote:

I don't understand.  Are you seriously suggesting that "barzel"  does *not*
mean iron?!  On what basis?  AFAIK at that time only six  metals were known,
and all six are listed in the pasuk in Mattos, so what  could "barzel" mean
if not iron?




>>>>
 
The six metals listed in Mattos, Bamidbar 31:22, are gold, silver, copper  
(presumably including bronze and brass), iron, tin and lead.  I can't  
imagine on what basis RMB would say these metals were not all known or not  
widely used at the time the Torah was given.  Why would he assume that  Betzalel 
"didn't have the technology" to make iron tools?
 
According to wiki, "In historical archaeology, the ancient literature of  
the Iron Age includes...parts of the Hebrew Bible."  Not that I know what  
years they are assuming for either (a) the Iron Age or (b) the Hebrew  Bible.
 
Wiki also says "The Iron Age is the third principal period of the three-age 
 system created by Christian Thomsen (1788?1865) for classifying ancient  
societies and prehistoric stages of progress."  The dating  and 
classification system created by this guy Thomsen, who died  in 1865, is so reliable?  
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150121/e75f3545/attachment.htm>

R' Zev Sero asked:
"WHat about cham ke'ambati? Does he say that is also mid'rabanan?
...
Why go to Maaser Sheni, when we already have the clear din in Shabbos that
a kli sheni which is cham ke'ambati does cook?"

The din of cham k'ambati is not relevant here for a number of reasons:
1. Many rishonim in Shabbas (42a) explain that the ambati is a kli rishon
(Rashi and others) and therefore it has no relevance to the din of kli
sheini
2. Tosafos (aval b'ambati) does explain that ambati is a kli sheini but
states explicitly that the issur is a gezera d'rabbanan that since it is so
hot people will think it is a kli rishon. This is also how some explain the
Rambam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150121/2ffa7a80/attachment.htm>

<<The seriously (or dangerously) ill patient ..."
"(d) One whose state or illness our Sages have defined as being dangerous,
even if this is contrary to current medical opinion; for example, a woman
during the first seven days following childbirth.>>

Not always - we dont heat water on shabbat for the baby even though the
gemara allows it

Also the reverse is true - one can be mechallel shabbat to save a life even
though the gemara does not allow it - the classic example is for a fetus in
the 8th month. The gemara assumes that it cant live but today these are
standard cases for a health baby

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150122/0eb6b51c/attachment.htm>

From a recent Harvard Business Review article - The unstructured  knowledge
description sounded to me like R' YBS describing the halachic
heart/intuition, the structured knowledge description sounded like what I
would guess many think halachic knowledge is (perhaps the latter is true
for longer settled issues or more cut and dried ones? :

Unstructured versus structured.
 Unstructured (tacit) knowledge involves deep, almost intuitive
 understanding that is hard to articulate; it's generally rooted in great
 expertise. World-class, highly experienced engineers may intuit how to
 solve technical problems that nobody else can (and may be unable to
 explain their intuition). Rainmakers in a strategy consulting firm know in
 their bones how to steer a conversation or a discussion, develop a
 relationship, and close a deal, but they would have trouble telling
 colleagues why they made a particular move at a particular moment.
 Structured (explicit or codified) knowledge is easier to communicate: A
 company that's expert in the use of discovery-driven planning, for
 example, can bring people up to speed on that methodology quickly because
 it has given them recourse to a common language, rules of thumb, and
 conceptual frameworks. Some knowledge is so fully structured that it can
 be captured in patents, software, or other intellectual property.

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/20150122/9992cdfa/attachment.htm>

Thank you Akivah for your reference to Shemiras Shabbos KeHilchasa 36:13
who writes: "You can do for her whatever SHE ASKS FOR HER HEALTH AND
COMFORT (l'briutah ul'hargashatah hatovah) even if the doctor says there's
no need for it at all."


Where a person who is in a recognised by modern medical standards,
medically weakened state and that person makes a request that is
conceivably of some medical benefit, we already know that Chazal recognise
the validity of that request and self evaluation. Halacha has a legitimate
foundation even by today's medical experts who recognise that their ability
to diagnose is limited and they certainly accept their inability to
diagnose that a person who claims to be ill, is not.


This is what you have brought proof for.

But it is not what we are discussing. We are discussing and want to
establish whether Halachic Talmudic guidelines for what is recorded in our
traditions as being medically legitimate, is without qualification, true
also today, and overrides Shabbos, always.


I think the determination to assert that Halacha overrides medical science
in general and medical science in our particular discussion, is driven by
something along the following lines - because it is axiomatic that Talmudic
wisdom is Gds Wisdom, it is clearly superior to all other wisdoms including
modern wisdom. From this premise one is compelled to conclude that even
suggesting, and certainly admitting that modern medical wisdom eclipses
that of our Sages is by default insulting to and a betrayal of Torah. And
even if all evidence points to the Talmudic version being founded upon the
wisdom of their time which is now well recognised to be erroneous,
nevertheless, it must be right and is often defended as being right from an
esoteric perspective i.e. a perspective that eclipses our scientific
analysis and experience. That is why Kabbalah features so heavily in our
recent discussion about Merzitza on Shabbos because it is presented as the
Joker in the pack - the winning un-challenge-able argument. I knows
something that you do not and only really clever people and those who
believe can see it. It is another version of the Kings new clothes.

And the people who believe this also believe they are entitled to be
offended if someone disagrees with them.


However, we do see that today we no longer accept the halachic legitimacy
that is recorded in the Gemara and Poskim, that someone who claims they
need to eat non kosher food may eat it because it is Pikuach Nefesh.

This is no longer accepted as Halacha.


Talmudic and Halachic medical evaluations guide us to be Mechallel Shabbos
if and only if there is ALREADY a recognised by our standards and wisdom,
medical condition AND ALSO that the request is for something that makes
sense in our eyes and conceivably contributes to the sick persons recovery.
The mother following childbirth wants the lights off or some music on or
warm or freshly cooked food. If she asks for bacon, I am confident you will
not find a LOR who will permit that.

And so too regarding the Beris Milah, although the baby is in a medically
weakened condition, Metzitza is not something that conceivably contributes
to the baby's well-being or comfort. And so, it should be maintained for
the sake of maintaining our traditions, however, it must not be performed
on Shabbos but as a pretence in order to maintain the tradition.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150123/c8d954fb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:55:34AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: Also the reverse is true - one can be mechallel shabbat to save a life even
: though the gemara does not allow it - the classic example is for a fetus in
: the 8th month. The gemara assumes that it cant live but today these are
: standard cases for a health baby

When I got to the sugya when I was learning Yerushalmi, I suggested that
this example is not purely one of current scientific knowledge over Chazal
when life is at risk.

Quoting from my post of 2012:
...
> Also, the Y-mi ([Yevamos] 24b) distinguishes between a 7 month term
> fetus that is born late in the 8th month, and a 9 month term fetus
> born a month early.
>    Notzar le7 venolad lishmonah, chayei.
>    Kol shekein letish'ah.
>    Notzar letish'ah venolad lishmonah, einu chayei...

>And where to we know that there are two kinds of yestziros? R' Ze'ira
>(a/ka/ R' Zeira) besheim R' Huna, from "vayiytzer" (Bereishis 12) --
>a yud for each sort of gestation.

> Anyway, it would seem to be implied by this Y-mi (as it is from modern
> medicine) that you would be mechalal shabbos for an 8th month fetus,
> because maybe it's a 7-monther being born late.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

 From the example that SSK gives, namely turning on the heater in Tamuz 
if she's cold (I'm assuming that she doesn't have a fever) it appears 
that you really do whatever she asks for.

Is there a requirement to remind her (or any sefeik choleh sh'yesh 
saqana) that it is Shabbat like there is on YK?

On 1/23/2015 1:02 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> Thank you Akivah for your reference to Shemiras Shabbos KeHilchasa 
> 36:13 who writes: "You can do for her whatever SHE ASKS FOR HER HEALTH 
> AND COMFORT (l'briutah ul'hargashatah hatovah) even if the doctor says 
> there's no need for it at all."

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> When I got to the sugya when I was learning Yerushalmi, I suggested that
> this example is not purely one of current scientific knowledge over Chazal
> when life is at risk.
...
> > Anyway, it would seem to be implied by this Y-mi (as it is from modern
> > medicine) that you would be mechalal shabbos for an 8th month fetus,
> > because maybe it's a 7-monther being born late.

The Minchat Yitzchak states that in principle even today we don't take
care of a 8 month fetus on shabbat because of muktzah as the gemara
states. How can we believe doctors against the gemara ! Note that the
gemara says there is no pikuach nefesh because NO 8 month fetus lives.

As a psak Minchat Yitzchak agrees to save the baby on the grounds that
we can never know ehether the fetus is 8th month. Even this is a chiddush
for him as the gemara doesnt take yjis into account

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:06:29PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
: The six metals listed in Mattos, Bamidbar 31:22, are gold, silver, copper 
: (presumably including bronze and brass), iron, tin and lead. I can't 
: imagine on what basis RMB would say these metals were not all known or not 
: widely used at the time the Torah was given. Why would he assume that Betzalel
: "didn't have the technology" to make iron tools?

Because the oldest evidence of Ironworks in the middle east is
carbon-dated to 930 BCE, which according to Seder Olam would be one year
after the split into Yehudah and Yisrael. Even if it existed some 350
earlier, it would at best be rare (these aren't miraculous tends in a
midbar; this is iron, buildings, kilns...), and posessed only by the
Hittite Kingdom -- who had a monopoly or near monopoly in the region
in 930. And only affordable to very few among Benei Cheis, never mind a
rival kingdom like Mitzrayim. If it was available at all, not too many
Egyptian neighbors would have had iron.

The Jews in the midbar had far from the resources of an empire, and
no need to set up ironworks. Why would you assume they *would* have
unnecessary cutting-edge tech to have violated this issur even if they
wanted to?

But that wasn't my point. Think in more relative terms. Iron was by far
not the dominant metal. Most swords were bronze. Why would Hashem ban
iron and exclude bronze? "Lo sanif aleha barzel" makes more sense if
barzel were meant in this context as a general term for metal.

And, as already shown, there is no appearance in Tanakh of another word
that would mean metal in general.

Taking an example and also using it for the general is typically done with
the most common example. Lechem as food. Apple (in King James Engish) or
pomme as fruit. However, taking the general and applying it to a newcomer
is also something languages do. Such as "corn" (in American English).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In reference to Shemiras Shabbos KeHilchasa 36:13, R' Ben Waxman asked:

> From the example that SSK gives, namely turning on the heater in
> Tamuz if she's cold (I'm assuming that she doesn't have a fever)
> it appears that you really do whatever she asks for.
>
> Is there a requirement to remind her (or any sefeik choleh
> sh'yesh saqana) that it is Shabbat like there is on YK?

I don't have a great answer to this, but that SSK refers the reader to
section 32:52, and one might infer an answer from the way the SSK describes
the situation there. Pay particular note to what HE placed in parentheses:

"It is mutar and a mitzvah to violate Shabbos to prepare or transport
medicine for a Choleh Sheyesh Bo Sakana, if the doctor feels they are
needed for healing, or to prevent worsening of the situation, or to
decrease it, and likewise if the endangered patient (for whom the Shabbos
is dear and he fears violating it needlessly) requests it..."

Personally, I am trying to get a better understanding of the word
"needlessly" ("b'chinam") in this context. What is the shiur of need in
this context? As RBW notes, before one eats on Yom Kippur, he should be
reminded that it is indeed Yom Kippur, as we expect him to consider this in
evaluating his situation before deciding. But what we do NOT do is to ask
him in even colder and starker terms: "Do you really fear for your life? Do
you really think that without this bite you might possibly die?"

Now let's consider the example of a patient who requests hot food, such
that Shabbos would have to be violated (in a d'Oraisa manner) to prepare
it. Would he really die without it? Is it even a distant possibility? Is
there no alternative which could be prepared without violating Shabbos, but
it equally nutritious? - The halacha does not seem overly concerned with
these questions. As long as the patient for whom the Shabbos is dear and he
fears violating it needlessly requests it, we go ahead and cook it for him.

This is why I specifically cited the SSK 36:13 as writing: "for her health
and comfort (l'briutah ul'hargashatah hatovah) even of the doctor says
there's no need for it at all." Even if it is merely a comfort issue, and
NOT a health issue, then we can violate Shabbos at the patient's request
(as long as the patient is one for whom the Shabbos is dear and he fears
violating it needlessly). This is my example of where we are lenient to
follow the Rabbis rather than the doctors.

R' Meir Rabi wrote:

> Talmudic and Halachic medical evaluations guide us to be Mechallel
> Shabbos if and only if there is ALREADY a recognised by our
> standards and wisdom, medical condition AND ALSO that the request
> is for something that makes sense in our eyes and conceivably
> contributes to the sick persons recovery. The mother following
> childbirth wants the lights off or some music on or warm or
> freshly cooked food. If she asks for bacon, I am confident you
> will not find a LOR who will permit that.

I will start off by immediately conceding that I don't remember ever hear of a psak which would allow non-kosher food under such conditions.

But I *can* imagine it happening. I noted above that I don't know the shiur
to distinguish between "needless" and "need", but I agree that a patient
for whom the Shabbos is dear cannot and would not use his illness as an
excuse to sample some food that he's never tried before. But there are
other people to consider. Before going to the next paragraph, stop for a
moment, and consider the great importance that halacha is giving to the
patient's comfort.

We allow the heat to be turned up for the patient. We cook him hot food to
make him comfortable. I've noted that many people, when ill, will turn to
what they call "comfort foods". There's even a Wiki article on "comfort
food", and the very first example at the top of the page is a photo of
chicken soup.

Personally, a grilled cheese sandwich is one of my favorite comfort foods.
But what of a baal teshuva, or a ger, who has fond memories of bacon and
eggs as a child, and would be comforted by eating some now in his illness?
Despite RMR's protestations, I can easily imagine that a posek might allow
it. Perhaps the example is far-fetched, but anyone who has learned gemara
(or been to law school, I'd imagine) knows how the law is defined most
clearly by the most far-fetched of cases.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Man, 63, Avoids Wrinkles
63 Yr Old Man Shares Simple DIY Skin Tightening Method He Uses At Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54c24969c6e9e49696d0cst04vuc

On 01/23/2015 06:25 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But that wasn't my point. Think in more relative terms. Iron was by far
> not the dominant metal. Most swords were bronze. Why would Hashem ban
> iron and exclude bronze? "Lo sanif aleha barzel" makes more sense if
> barzel were meant in this context as a general term for metal.

And why would a rare metal be used as the generic term for metal?
Obviously those dates are wrong.

In any case, your claim is refuted, because it's undisputed halacha
(*not* a chidush of the Torah Temima) that only iron is forbidden.
The Rambam certainly had the word "matechet", and yet he says "barzel".
Since nobody disputes this, it is the halacha.


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



_______________________________________________
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.)