Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 25

Mon, 30 Oct 2006

• 1. Re: establishing mamzerut (Dr. Josh Backon)
• 2. Re: establishing mamzerut (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 3. Re: tree of knowledge of good and evil (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: tree of knowledge of good and evil (Minden)
• 5. DNA testing (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: honey [was: Hakafot on Shmini Atzeret] (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: establishing mamzerut (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: halachah lemoshe misinai (Eli Turkel)
• 9. ancient Jerusalem (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Hakafot on Shmini Atzeret (Dov Bloom)
• 11. Re: establishing mamzerut (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Lighting Neros on Yom Tov (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 13. Re: honey [was: Hakafot on Shmini Atzeret] (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: honey [was: Hakafot on Shmini Atzeret] (Jonathan Baker)
• 15. 2 new psakim of Rav Ovadia (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 16. Fw: Re Hoshanot after Shacharit - Nusach Ashkenaz (SBA)

The topic of using scientific tests in general (and blood tests
in particular) to determine halacha is discussed in the Nishmat
Avraham EVEN HA'EZER 4 Alef (4 page detailed discussion).

The Tzitz Eliezer XIII 104 says these blood tests have no relevance
in halacha. RSZA z"l was more cautious and suggested that one may
rely on these tests as ancillary material ["k'snif l'diyun'}. BTW
he quotes Aishdas chaver R. Dov Frimer who stated that Rav Auerbach
meant that these tests aren't to determine absolute paternity. Those
that invalidated thee blood tests of paternity include: Rav Uzziel,
the Dvar Yehoshua, Meshaneh Halachot, and the Divrei Yisrael.

However, the Nishmat Avraham does quote an article in the medico-halachic
journal ASSIA that there were poskim who did accept blood tests to determine
paternity.

KT

Josh 

> RMYG wrote:
> > Last night, I spoke with someone who was involved with the Agunah
> > situations after Sept. 11. He told me that R' Wosner takes the position
> > that DNA is only good as a Siman, and can't be used to be Motzi Mamon
> (e.g.
> > for Yerushah) or for Yichus. He said that he heard from RYSE's Talmidim,
> > that RYSE takes a stronger position regarding DNA, and considers it
> worth
> > more than R' Wosner does, but that RYSE doesn't say publicly what his
> > position is. He referred me to Yeshurun (IIRC, vol. 11) that has a few
> > pieces regarding DNA in the context of 9/11.
R' Arie Folger:
> This issue was extensively discussed one day at the 24th Conference of
> European Rabbis, two years ago in Paris, and I recall hearing exactly the
> opposite from someone who was involved in this halakhah lema'asseh. Rav
> Wosner is rather inclined to accept DNA evidence against igun.

That's what I said (although I wasn't clear). R' Wosner holds that DNA can
help as a Siman against Igun. The context of our discussion is Yichus, and
that's what my post focused on. 

KT,
MYG

 
 
R' Lipman Phillip Minden wrote:


>>I understood it  similarly, even without a need to change hadda-as to 
houda-as, namely by  understanding "touv vera" as an object rather than the second 
part of a smiches  construction. This isn't common, but possible, I think, 
especially if you  consider that da-as is (or is similar to) a verbal form. 
Compare the English  equivalents - "tree of knowledge good and bad" doesn't work, 
but for a verbal  form that doubles as a noun it works: "tree of the knowing of 
good and bad" =  "tree of knowing good and bad".<<


.
>>>>>
Except that in Hebrew the word "es" appears before the object of a  verb.  So 
if tov vara were the object of the verb lada'as,  it  would have to say "eitz 
hada'as es tov ve'es ra" or "eitz hada'as es hatov ve'es  hara."




--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061029/96138364/attachment.htm

RTK wrote:
> Except that in Hebrew the word "es" appears before the object of a  verb.  So if tov vara were the object of the verb lada'as,  it  would have to say "eitz hada'as es tov ve'es ra" or "eitz hada'as es hatov ve'es  hara."

Not exactly, I'm afraid, in two aspects:
A. The rules are "more like guidelines", in other words, they're rather a matter of statistic likeliness, and
B. the rule is actually that only determinate nouns (those with the article and proper names) get the "es", not undeterminate. (Hebrew doesn't have intermediate ones like in English "life" etc.)


Lipman Phillip Minden
http://lipmans.blogspot.com

Strangely blood testing is more pf problem than DNA testing because of
the gemara that various properties of the child come from each parent. Thus,
if the blood comes from the mother it cannot be used to establish paternity.
Since this has no basis in modern medicine some poskim like R. Herszog
disregarded the gemara (ie it is philosophic and not halacha le-maaseh).
Others like the Tzitz Eliezer imply we accept the gemara against modern science.

DNA is better since there are no gemaras that deny its validity.
hence. the question
is "just" the more general one of when do we accept science evidence
as a substitute
for testimony

kol tuv

Eli Turkel


On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 03:14:57, Dr. Josh Backon <backon@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> The topic of using scientific tests in general (and blood tests
> in particular) to determine halacha is discussed in the Nishmat
> Avraham EVEN HA'EZER 4 Alef (4 page detailed discussion).
>
> The Tzitz Eliezer XIII 104 says these blood tests have no relevance
> in halacha. RSZA z"l was more cautious and suggested that one may
> rely on these tests as ancillary material ["k'snif l'diyun'}. BTW
> he quotes Aishdas chaver R. Dov Frimer who stated that Rav Auerbach
> meant that these tests aren't to determine absolute paternity. Those
> that invalidated thee blood tests of paternity include: Rav Uzziel,
> the Dvar Yehoshua, Meshaneh Halachot, and the Divrei Yisrael.
>
> However, the Nishmat Avraham does quote an article in the medico-halachic
> journal ASSIA that there were poskim who did accept blood tests to determine
> paternity.
>
> KT
>
> Josh
>
>


-- 
Eli Turkel

 
 
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
>>Other  well-known halachot based on "mistakes": the kashrut of bee-honey
(when the  text meant date-honey) <<
 
.
>>>>>
Shimshon and Yonasan both ate bee honey.  Not a mistake,  obviously.





--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061029/329e14e5/attachment.html

After I reported that, despite popular perception to the contrary, major 
poskim do accept that DNA evidence is halakhicly sound, RJRich asked:

> So why should we rely on rov beilot if there is a quick and easy way to
> be mvarer (and thus require in any case - e.g. inheritance,marriage)

It is a kind of modern takkanah, to avoid finding out about mazerut. Better to 
have unresolved monetary cases than mamzerut. We are under no obligation to 
perform DNA tests to confirm or deny yichus.

KT,

Arie Folger

> In a class we discussed the Rambam that there are no disagreements in
> halacha lemoshe misinai and the questions of the Chavot Yair.
> Can anyone point me to answers for the questions of the Chavot Yair?

In addition to the Maharatz Chayot I found that RYBS has a yahrzeit shiur
(shiurim lezecher abba mori I) called shtei Masorot that is essentially
devoted to answering this question

kol tuv


Eli Turkel
School of Mathematics
Tel Aviv University

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

<<>In daf yomi the mishna states that the lights from simcha bet
hashoeva lit the whole town. Rashi explains because the temple mount
is high and it was lit 50 amot high and the eastern was short.

According to my Magid Shiur, this is one of the proofs that the main
part of the City of Jerusalem was located to the East, i.e. on Har Hazetim>

All models of the old city show the main bridge going from the Temple
mount to the upper city in the current Jewish quarter. In addition
there is the burnt house and various other ancient houses in the
Jewish quarter.
In addition har hazeitim is an ancient cemetery. Is there any
evidence that the main part of the city was on har hazeitim other that
some questions on gemarot?

Eli Turkel

Johnathan Baker  summarised the sources brought down by Yaari relating to the practices of the ARI.

It is wothwhile to note that the sefer Hemdat HaYamim was accused by achronim such as RY Eibshitz as well as some modern scholars of being influenced by Shabbetaism. The Munkatcher Rebber also scorned the sefer. See a discussion about the sefer in Chabad - if the Rebbi distrused it or held by it, in <http://www.haoros.com/download.asp?kovetzID=837&;ext=doc>http://www.haoros.com/download.asp?kovetzID=837&;ext=doc. 

Someone named M. Fogel wrote a whole article a few years ago re-analysing the accusations against Hemdat HaYamim in an article published in a book called "HaChalom VeShivro" all about the Shabbatean movement. 

At any rate, for anything where the Hemdat HaYamim is a primary proof, best tread with care.

Dov 

>The author of Hemdas Yomim (part 3, Days of Sukkot, ch. 8) did not have
>a ms. of Shaar Hakavvanot, and relied on R' Jacob Tzemach.
>...

>In fact, the Chasidish minhag to make hakafot on leil Shmini Atzeret 
>was a chiddush of the Hemdat Yamim (ibid., ch 7), to express unity with
>the Jews of EY who were making their hakafot that night.  It was picked 
>up by R' Alexander Ziskind of Horodno (Yesod veShoresh HaAvodah 11:16).
>
>..... there was a conscious choice made by the author of Hemdat Yamim, and ratified by
>early Chasidim, to do extra hakafot on the night of Shmini Atzeret.



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.428 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 27-Oct-06 3:15 PM

After I reported that, despite popular perception to the contrary, major
poskim do accept that DNA evidence is halakhicly sound, RJRich asked:

> So why should we rely on rov beilot if there is a quick and easy way 
> to be mvarer (and thus require in any case - e.g. 
> inheritance,marriage)

It is a kind of modern takkanah, to avoid finding out about mazerut.
Better to have unresolved monetary cases than mamzerut. We are under no
obligation to perform DNA tests to confirm or deny yichus.

KT,

Arie Folger
---------------------------------------------------
Let's try a different case. 1 piece of treif meat which has a
radioactive signature falls into 2 pieces of kosher meat.  Do I need to
test the piece I take or rely on rov?
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.

> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:17:18 GMT
> From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] Lighting Neros on Yom Tov
> Message-ID: <20061028.181809.2325.1314385@webmail23.lax.untd.com>
 
> We know that when melacha is allowed on Yom Tov, it is not a blanket 
> heter. The melacha is allowed only if there is a *need* for that 
> action. 
[del]
> So we have two cases about lighting a fire on Yom Tov specifically 
> for a mitzvah, not for actual use. Both are left as a "Tzarich Iyun". 
[del]

I would highly recommend reading Rav Chaim David HaLevy's article in his book Mekor Chaim HaShalem on the issue of Shabbat and Yom Tov candles, and their need.
 
> Namely, the Yom Tov candles themselves. Sometimes they are lit before 
> Yom Tov, but sometimes we light them on Yom Tov itself. (See footnote 
> 1 for more details.)

> Is this melacha mutar? To me, this case seems similar to the other 
> two cases, a Tzarich Iyun. 
 
> It is undeniable that the whole world *does* light under these 
> conditions, and has been doing so for decades. But what is the heter?
 
> Are there any other poskim who deal with this question? In light of 
> Shaar Hatziyun 435:9, how do we light Neros Yom Tov when the room is 
> already full of electric light? Perhaps we must arrange things so 
> that they are lit only in a dark room?

To continue, according to Rav Chaim David HaLevy, the more lights the merrier.  Following his ruling and explanations, I have made a point of actually having more electric lights on than in the past.

> (Footnote 1: Some have the minhag to always light Neros Yom Tov after 
> Yom Tov has already started, so this question always applies to them. 
> Others usually light beforehand (like on Shabbos) but even they often 
> light on Yom Tov itself: 

Rav Ovadia Yosef (I don't have the source) states that on Yom Tov, first we have to say the Beracha and only then light the candles (on Shabbat we light first).

For Yom Tov Sheni it is customary to use an existing flame to light the candles, so there is no real question here.

> (Footnote 2: He asks how the bracha 
> may be said on such a lighting, since no hanaah will be gotten from 
> those candles. 

As for the Hanaah, they bring Shalom La'Olam, specifically by the intent in their lighting and this is not negated by the presence of electric light.



Shoshana L. Boublil

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>

>> Other well-known halachot based on "mistakes": the kashrut of bee-honey
>> (when the text meant date-honey)

> Shimshon and Yonasan both ate bee honey.  Not a mistake, obviously.

Shimshon, yes.  But Yonatan?  IIRC, Metzudot David translates it as
cane sugar; that's anachronistic, since sugar wasn't introduced into
the Mediterranean until the early Moslem period, but the Metzudot
would probably still say it was the sweet sap of some other plant.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

RnTK:
> From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> >>Other  well-known halachot based on "mistakes": the kashrut of bee-honey
> > (when the  text meant date-honey) <<

> Shimshon and Yonasan both ate bee honey.  Not a mistake,  obviously.

Yes, but interestingly, both were assur.  One for being eaten from
the innards of a dead non-kosher animal, the other for being eaten
in contravention of an oath.

So yes, linguistically, devash can be bee-honey, there's still no
evidence that as bee-honey, it's muttar.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/11/ART1/498/181.html
    
Rav Ovadia gave 2 interesting psakim in his shiur on Motza'ei Shabbat

a) Mixed seating at weddings is permitted at weddings, if separate sitting will cause Machloket and figting in the family.

His followers make it clear that his is ONLY with regard to the sitting and no the dancing.

b) Women's lib has had a good influence on present day women in that they are no longer too shy and afraid of appearing in front of men, and therefore, there is no problem and women need to say HaGomel in front of a Minyan of 10.

Shoshana L. Boublil

See SA OC: Hilchos Lulav 651 -  Shaarei Teshuva (SK 10):
quoting sefer Korban Chagiga:
" ...sheminhag Yerushalayim lomar haHoshanos  acher Hallel 
hu minhag vosikin..."

SBA 



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25
*************************************

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..."