Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 140

Sun, 17 Dec 2017

• 1. S"A Principles (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh (Micha Berger)
• 4. Tevilat Kelim (Aryeh Frimer)
• 5. Re: Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh (Ben Waxman)
• 6. zmanim (Michael Poppers)
• 7. Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise (Professor L. Levine)
• 8. Re: Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh (Micha Berger)
• 9. Mamlekhat Chimyar (Micha Berger)
• 10. New Cancer Treatment (Micha Berger)
• 11. The Downtown Chanukiah (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: New Cancer Treatment (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: New Cancer Treatment (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: New Cancer Treatment (Zev Sero)
• 15. How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? (Professor L. Levine)

Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara
(R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of
water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch
be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know
of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources
(or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of
the frequency of such quotes?
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-aishdas.org/attachments/20171214/e2c26048/attachment-0001.html>

.

(I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or
not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the
distraction.)

R' Micha Berger asked:

> I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between
> chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough
> made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were
> diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is
> we should measure, how can we use science to measure it?

I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz
and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does
exist, and Chazal understood it.

See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the
ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various
grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They
found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other
grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the
tests were inconclusive.)

There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of
the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look
for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz -
without even knowing the ingredients.

> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of
> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure
> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So,
> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim
> if it were resolvable?

The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for.

The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a
degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on
the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what
those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference
between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the
"centuries of acharonim" is gonna help.

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the
: ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various
: grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They
: found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other
: grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the
: tests were inconclusive.)

(Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom
of the amud.)

Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I
did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact
even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There
are other problems:

1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz
and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz?
Not one of the experiments had another dissenter?

2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the
experiment?

As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri
and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and
sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the
5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar
kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon."

Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about
qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it?
The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given
RYBN differing obseration.

As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited
as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because
the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so
clear cut on the first test.

And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah
deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws
the line.

: There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of
: the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look
: for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz -
: without even knowing the ingredients.

... and we don't know what to look for.

:> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of
:> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure
:> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So,
:> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim
:> if it were resolvable?

: The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for.

As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical
question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly
attempted to be resolved.

You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to
reject.

But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its
sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have
arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by
lost information.

: The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a
: degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on
: the list or not.,,,

Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the
Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other
than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is
halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers,
who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the
metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw
halachic lines in the physical sand.

So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini,
we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one
of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic
test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the
other -- because we don't know where the line is.

A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

Has anyone  seen a  discussion regarding one who said "al  haTevila" 
(which women recite when going to mikva)  instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." 
Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad?

A Freilichen Hanukah!!
--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus
   of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il
Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer
E-mail (home): Frim...@zahav.net.il

It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh 
I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times 
more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach.

Ben

On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam
> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to
> the next Sanhedrin?

From R'Micha:
> Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal
that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of
the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin).
?
>
?
Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't
living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and
barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing
in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. <
...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre-
*Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171214/d0de25cc/attachment-0001.html>

See

https://goo.gl/1AP3eB



Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says

what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise
themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said
to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he
announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We
gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he
tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he
issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen.
Rabbah 91:5]

Why did Yosef order them to do that?


See the above URL for three explanations.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171215/dce432f1/attachment-0001.html>

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
:> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam
:> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to
:> the next Sanhedrin?

: It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush
: Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible
: detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach.

My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting:
The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff.

It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin
would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso,
one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background
in all 7 chokhmos.


That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah
Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So,
Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism)
and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected
to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim".

An enlightening and happy Chanukah
and :-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam

I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from
110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula.
It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.)

See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himyarite_Kingdom#Jewish_monarchy>:
> The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted
> to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of
> the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes
> occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This
> date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the
> names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal
> and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were
> abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references
> to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The
> political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest
> in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing
> empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine
> the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism
> and Manichaeism.[9]
...
> During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal
> inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by
> references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and
> sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the
> Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers
> invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with
> the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16]

I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa
when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel.

A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah
un a gutt voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions:
    Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells
    or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1
and
    Killing Cancer with Spermbots
    http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots

In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children
produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim.

BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes
kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are not a human being in search
mi...@aishdas.org        of a spiritual experience. You are a
http://www.aishdas.org   spiritual being immersed in a human
Fax: (270) 514-1507      experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Please see the video at
<https://goo.gl/dgSTLv>https://goo.gl/dgSTLv

In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of 
where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the 
Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or 
not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha.


YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171217/1d46a75b/attachment-0001.html>

On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes
> kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced?

I wouldn't think so.  There's still no act of zenus.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes
:>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced?

: I wouldn't think so.  There's still no act of zenus.

There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei
kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the
Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally
argue there is no act of zenus.

So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his
shitah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote:
> There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei
> kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the
> Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally
> argue there is no act of zenus.
> 
> So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his
> shitah.

as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of 
zenus is necessary to create a mamzer.  The SR (aiui) holds it is not, 
therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless 
a mamzer.  Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's 
no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any 
child result it would be a mamzer.

But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand 
transmission which may have garbled important points.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

From

https://goo.gl/L634gH


Rashi to 45:4<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14020&;st=&pgnum=580>
says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them
his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that
prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on
41:55<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14020&;st=&pgnum=539>.
If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he
do it?


See the above URL for answers.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171217/df2ce161/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)