Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 196

Wed, 17 Nov 2010

• 1. Maaser Sheni and Yerushalayim bizman hazeh (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Maaser Sheni and Yerushalayim bizman hazeh (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Hankman)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] Godel's incompleteness theorems -- Proof of G-d'sexistence (Hankman)
• 5. Re: [Areivim] Godel's incompleteness theorems -- Proof of G-d'sexistence (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre (Micha Berger)
• 7. Is Turkey Kosher? (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 10. "Brain death" as a halachic criterion (from areivim) (Saul Mashbaum)
• 11. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 13. Contents of Avodah on Atifas Talis (Yishmealim) and the Gra (Joel Schnur)
• 14. Re: Murder? (Micha Berger)

Just learned Maaser Sheini 1:5 (1:3, 6b in the Y-mi) this morning. I
thought the problem with eating maaser sheini bizman hazeh is the lack
of parah adumah. However, the mishnah mentions a different issue.

According to the mishnah:
If someone buys fruit with maaser sheini money beshogeig [back at home,
not Y-m; the Bartenura suggests that he didn't know the money was from
MS], the money returns to its former status.

If bemeizid, he must take the fruit with him to Y-m and eat it there.

If, however, there is no miqdash, you must leave the fruit to rot.

Does this not imply that bayis sheini ... LO qidshah le'asid lavo?
Otherwise, why couldn't someone eat it in Y-m? The dividing line would
be the availability of parah adumah, not the BHMQ.

(Moreso, the Y-mi says the case must be someone who was podeh MS before
churban bayis, and now was left with the money.)

So, how does the Rambam explain the mishnah in light of his holding it
was qidshah leshaata veqidshah le'asid lavo? No, the Peirush haMishnayos
doesn't say.


A second observation, while discussing my learning of this morning...
On 7a (same mishnah) is a machloqes R' Yishmael and Rabbi Aqiva. R'
Yishmael invokes a kelal uperat ukelal, and R' Aqiva explains the ke'ein
haperat differently. This is notable because R' Aqiva lists middos
based on ribui umi'ut, not kelal uperat -- he was playing the game by R'
Yismael's rules.

It's not the only time we find that despite the distinct lists of rules,
each tanna was willing to make derashos based on the others' list.

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 16/11/2010 2:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> If, however, there is no miqdash, you must leave the fruit to rot.
>
> Does this not imply that bayis sheini ... LO qidshah le'asid lavo?
> Otherwise, why couldn't someone eat it in Y-m? The dividing line would
> be the availability of parah adumah, not the BHMQ.

Not so.   Maaser Sheni applies whether there is a Bayis or not, but it
may only be eaten in Yerushalayim when there is a Bayis.
http://mechon-mamre.org/i/7502.htm

So yes, kedusha shniya kidsha le'asid lavo; Y'm still has exactly the
same kedusha it had when the 2nd bayis was standing.  But what allows
MS to be eaten is the actual existence of a Bayis; without it the fruit
has kedusha, and the place has kedusha, but there is no permission to
eat the fruit.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

RMB wrote:

But does a king himself have the right to execute if he can't "kvetch in"
a risk to life?

CM responds:

Why not? Why wouldn't the curfew violators at the very least be considered mordim b'malchus and subject to execution even without kvetching in a risk to life?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101116/9bfdaa47/attachment-0001.htm>

Repost from Areivim to Avodah per moderator request:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:40:06AM -0500, Hankman wrote:
> : I suspect (speculate, I am no expert here) that Godel's incompleteness
> : theorems could be at the bottom of the reason why absolute proofs of
> : G-d's existence are hard (impossible by the theorm) to come by...

RMB responded:
> The proof is that any system of sufficient complexity can have something
> that can be mapped to "I am false". Therefore, systems of proof must be
> either incomplete or self-contradictory.

> Nothing about any non-self-referential claim being unprovable.

> Just about self-referential claims and the systems in which they (or
> something that maps to them 1:1) can be expressed.

As "Chosomo shel HKB'H emes," I presume that implies that the statement
"I am false" wrt to HKB'H, cholila, would be inadmissable (and certainly
untrue). What would that mean in our context wrt Godel?

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:03:51PM -0500, Hankman wrote:
: As "Chosomo shel HKB'H emes," I presume that implies that the statement
: "I am false" wrt to HKB'H, cholila, would be inadmissable (and certainly
: untrue). What would that mean in our context wrt Godel?

The statement "I am false" is made WRT the statement "I am false".
It's self referential. The "I" is the sentence itself, not its
speaker.

Normal statements that refer to things other than statements, such as
those about HQBH or what He isn't, are not part of Goedel's proof.

Goedel proved that a formal system of a certain complexity can't be
both complete and consistent. (Although it's usually phrased that it
can't be complete, with the possibility of an inconsistent system --
one in which both X and not X can be proven -- ruled out prema facae.)
He did so by showing that the assumption that it is possible would lead
to paradox. But the only incompleteness he proved MUST exist in such
systems are self-referential ones, statements that refer to themselves,
directly or not.

Second, this is a formal system. Meaning, a bunch of rigorously defined
rules and an algorithm. Who said the human mind and its proofs can be
reduced to a formal system? Perhaps artificial intelligence is impossible
simply because the mind does things digital computers, meaning "formal
system engines" can't? (Turing proved that two technical terms that
roughly are the same as "digital computer" and "formal system engine"
are identical.) And what if theological argument is within that domain
of things we do in ways that are beyong computing?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:12:10PM -0500, RCM wrote:
: Why not? Why wouldn't the curfew violators at the very least be
: considered mordim b'malchus and subject to execution even without
: kvetching in a risk to life?

Who said that everyone who defies the king on any small thing is a
moreid bemalkhus? We're both assuming things, which is how we ended
up in different places.

I'm assuming that just like a milkhemes reshus, attacking an enemy, must
be justifiable in terms of saving lives over all, so must every decision
a king makes to spend lives. And so, a moreid bemalkhus is someone who
must be stopped or made an example of because if their act is left as is,
it could snowball into anarchy. Thus the word "moreid".

The Rambam, Melakhim 3:8 writes that even if the king decrees that some
commoner (echad mishe'ear ha'am) should go to some place and he doesn't,
chayav misah. OTOH, the previous clause is "kol hammoreid bamelekh yeish
lamelekh reshus lehorgo". Would you read it that a king has permission
to kill someone who rebels against his authority, but someone who defies
his authority in any small way is *chayav* misah? Or, that even a small
defiance, when performed as rebellion (meridah) is sufficient?

Along these line, the Minchas Chinukh #295 says that moreid havei kerodeif,
in terms of mesirah being mutar.

Or the AhS CM 1:26. OT1H, "dekhol hamamreh pi melekh hava moreid
bemalkhus." OTOH, he writes later, "dinei negashos ein danin, raq im
haya likhvodo kegon she'echad dibeir kenegdo -- de'az dan oso hamelekh
af lemisah"...

So I can't really prove the point clearly, I'm just exposing my own
more humanistic biases.

But I don't see RCM offering a real basis for his assumptions either.

We need meqoros!

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

The national American turkey day (Thanksgiving) is almost upon 
us.  Please see  Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky's article on this topic at

http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turkey/

He ends his article with the following:

Conclusion: The near universal acceptance of turkey as a kosher 
species, given the halachic quandary it presents, would indicate that 
the Jewish people have either accepted the possibility of originating 
mesorahs where none existed before or of accepting birds without the 
need for a mesorah. It is very possible that had the turkey question 
been posed when it was first introduced in the early 16th century, 
Jewish gastronomic history might have been different. It seems that 
many authorities may have initially come out against turkey because 
of its obvious lack of a mesorah. For some reason "bird 
controversies" erupted in the 18th and 19th centuries and when the 
turkey question was posed it often took the form of "why is it 
eaten?" rather than "may it be eaten?".

As has been shown, despite the fundamental difficulty with permitting 
turkey virtually all of the responsa are permissive, and it is 
unlikely that will (or should) change in the future. It seems that 
unless one has a specific family custom to refrain from turkey, to 
adopt such a behavior is morally wrong. The turkey is no longer new 
and its kosher status has been addressed by both the great and 
not-so-great Jewish minds over the during 250 years and has received 
near-universal endorsement. To call it into question now is to impugn 
the dozens of responsa, and more so, the millions of honorable Jews, 
who have eaten turkey for almost half a millennium. That is not the 
Jewish way.

Rabbi Dr. Zivotofsky is a man with many interests. Just do a google 
search with his name and you will see what I mean.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101116/b52f8528/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 04:27:14PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> The national American turkey day (Thanksgiving) is almost upon us.  
> Please see  Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky's article on this topic at
> http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turkey/

Rav Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey on any day, but he held it was kosher
mei'iqar hadin. Of RDL's talmidim, only one was advised to share this
chumerah -- and only if he didn't tell people. So, the story circulates
without sheim omero. (In case you're wondering, no, not me.)

This is much the same as RNKamenetzky reported about his father, R'
Yaakov Kamenecki, "My father did not advocate that others abstain"
(personal fax to RAZZivotofsky, as reported in the Journal of Halakhah
and Contemporary Society).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Another cross-over from Areivim.

We were commenting on a chart that listed positions on science (or
academics)-vs-Torah issues, and tried categorizing four stripes of O
Jews by their responses to it.

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:38:02PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote to Areivim:
> On 16/11/2010 2:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> As to the chareidi portrayal... What chareidi, no matter how moderate,
>> would claim the flood was local?

> My zaida z"l, who was quite charedi, saw no reason to believe the flood
> was global.  Indeed, there *must* be room in everyone's theology for
> belief in a non-global flood, since there's a valid opinion that EY was
> not flooded.

I didn't say "non-global", I said local.

Yes, "aretz" often means region or country. (E.g. eretz Kenaan.)
But "qeitz kol basar ba lefanai" (6:13), "leshacheis kol-basar asher-bo
ruach chaim mitachas hashamayim" (17), "nivqe'u kol ma'yenos tehom raba"
(7:11) and "vaychassu kol-heharim haggevohim asher-tachas kol-hashamayim"
(19) would require a whole new approach in the parshanus not offered
by Chazal and Rishonim. 6:17 and 7:19 and their reference to everything
under the sky seems pretty clearcut LAD.

The medrash RZS notes would also require explaing "kol" to mean "rov",
far less of a chiddush than "part of the Middle East". (To repeat what
I wrote about about non-global vs local in different words.)

See the thread
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=E#
EMUNAH%20PERAKIM%20AND%20THE%20MABUL>
or <http://bit.ly/dC5dXJ>, from early 2006.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On areivim, we have been discussing R. Avi Shafran'c cross-currents blog on
brain death and
organ donation among the Orthodox.
I came across a very valuable resource on this complex subject which I wish
to share.

 A 110 page comprehensive discussion of the subject of brain death as a
halachic criterion for permitting harvesting organs for transplants.
entitled " Halachic Issues in the Determination of Death and in Organ
Transplantation, Including an Evaluation of the Neurological ?Brain Death?
Standard", can be found at

http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/Halachi_%20Issues_the_Determination.pdf

The title page identifies this work as

A Study by the Vaad Halacha of the Rabbinical Council of America of the
Halachic and Medical Issues Relating to Organ Transplantation from both Live
& Cadaver Donors, and the Determination of Death in Halacha*.*
Hat tip to Hirhurim.

This long essay mentions that almost all poskim who oppose "brain death" as
a halachic criterion nevertheless say that it is permissable to accept an
organ which was harvested  on the basis of "brain death". One halachic
justistification for this position, cited in the name of R Ahron
Soloveitchik is that the prohibition of being machzik ydei ovrei avera is
nidche by pikuach nefesh, based on Nedarim 22. See page 70 of the cited
essay, note 192.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101117/ebc1640d/attachment-0001.htm>

On 16/11/2010 4:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:38:02PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote to Areivim:
>> On 16/11/2010 2:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>>> As to the chareidi portrayal... What chareidi, no matter how moderate,
>>> would claim the flood was local?

>> My zaida z"l, who was quite charedi, saw no reason to believe the flood
>> was global.  Indeed, there *must* be room in everyone's theology for
>> belief in a non-global flood, since there's a valid opinion that EY was
>> not flooded.
  
> I didn't say "non-global", I said local.

OK.  IIRC, my zaida told me this in response to my question about
the Ararat mountains being much lower than the Himalayas.  He asked,
how did I know the flood reached India?  If humans were confined to
Western Asia then there was no reason for anywhere else to be flooded,
and the Ararat mountains (the Kurdish mountains, as Onkelos calls them)
may well be the highest in that region.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:27:12PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> OK.  IIRC, my zaida told me this in response to my question about
> the Ararat mountains being much lower than the Himalayas.  He asked,
> how did I know the flood reached India?  If humans were confined to
> Western Asia then there was no reason for anywhere else to be flooded,
> and the Ararat mountains (the Kurdish mountains, as Onkelos calls them)
> may well be the highest in that region.

But where did your Zeide get his peshat from? The medrash doesn't say
it was "all of the inhabited area except Israel", but all of the world.
Recall the baseline assumption, "leshacheis kol basar asher yeish bo
ruach chaim" (6:17) Wouldn't any medrash that says the flood was more
local than the spread of all sorts of fauna actually explicitly say so --
or at say something that would require you to conclude so?

As for your question, perhaps the Himalayas were already well exposed
before Harei Ararat. However, the teiva wasn't near the Himalayas at
the time, and therefore didn't come to rest on them.

I also wonder why someone would posit a local flood while still denying
the age of human habitation of India, China, Tanzania (think Kilimanjaro),
etc...

(In any case, my original point on Areivim was just that it's not a
typical "Moderate Chareidi" position to posit a local flood; you'll find
few chareidim of any sort considering the idea.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

The Gra did not "change the din" of atifas yishmealim being a requirement.
He held that atifa means putting one tzitis in the front and one in the back
on both the right and left sides. He differed with the Gaonim, the Mordechai
and the Tur because the posuk says, Asher T'chase Bah" in the manner that
people cover, sometimes on, sometimes off their head. The only requirement
for atifas yishmealim is for an avel. Hence one doesn't even have to cover
his face down to his mouth or hold it there for the time length of daled
amos.

 

And since the requirement is front and back he also holds that one only
grasps the front 2 tsitis for krias shema, leaving the back two where they
are. As long as I am bringing that up, there is also no kissing or rubbing
the yes with the tzitis, only looking at them. He considers any of those
activities as a hefsik both during krias shema and after baruch sheamar
where he doesn't even require holding of any tzitis.

 

For further elucidation see shulchan aruch ha Gra, siman chess sif katan
dalet. Also latest Maase Rav with the Likutei HaGra and Kovaitz Meforshim
ois tes vov

 

___________________________

Joel Schnur

Senior VP

Government Affairs/Public Relations

Schnur Associates, Inc.

1350 Avenue of the Americas

Suite 1200

New York, NY 10019

 

Tel. 212-489-0600 x204

Fax. 212-489-0203 

j...@schnurassociates.com 

www.schnurassociates.com
<http://www.schnurassociates.com/>  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101117/a28c1c5d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 04:37:00PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Let me pose some other ethical -- and even Halachic questions. Let us
: say that someone needs a kidney. Let us further assume that his prognosis
: is death without a transplant.
: Let us then say that he knows of someone who is a compapitable donor
: that can donate one of his kidneys and save his life.

: But the potential donor refuses to put himself under the knife since
: there is a minimal risk of death...

See http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/Live_Organ_Donations_1.html
R Chaim Jachter discusses a machloqes between the BY where he writes
that one must assume risk to save someone from certain death. and the SA
where the omits it (CM 426). The Sema says this is because the ruling
would be against all three of the Rif, the Rambam and the Rosh. Which
in turn comes from a machloqes between the Y-mi (and the BY's source)
and the Bavli (which is presumably the Rif, Rambam and Rosh's).

But even without risk to life:

The Radvaz (shu"t #627) writes that one is no obligated to sacrifice a
limb to save another. "Derkhahe darkhei noam). And this is the Shach,
the Pischei Teshuvah, the IM (YD 2:174:4) and the Tzitz Eliezer.

WRT nidon didan in particular RCJ writes:
    Dayan Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 6:103) in 1961 ruled that it
    was forbidden to donate a kidney due to the significant risk of death
    involved in the procedure and due to concern for future need of the
    donated kidney. However, in an undated Teshuvah (written after 1961
    but before 1980; it seems to have been written during the 1970's)
    Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 9:45) while initially
    agreeing with Dayan Weisz, proceeds to modify his stance and considers
    permitting a live kidney donation if "a team of specialists decides
    after a rigorous examination that the donation does not involve
    risk to the donor." He concludes, nonetheless, "Kuli Hai VeUlai,"
    even after all efforts are exerted, the doubt remains unresolved.

    Rav Ovadia Yosef, however, writes in a Teshuvah published in 1980
    (ad. loc.) that Torah observant specialists have informed him
    that the risk involved in kidney donation is very slight and that
    ninety nine percent of donors return to full health. Based on this
    information, Rav Ovadia Yosef rules "it is certainly a Mitzvah to
    donate [a kidney] to save his fellow from certain death." We should
    note that Rav Yosef does not state that it is an obligatory to make
    such a donation. This seems due to the ruling of the aforementioned
    Radbaz that the Torah does not oblige one to give up a limb even in
    order to save another's life.

...
: What recipient were your child?

When people are nog'im bedavar and their emotions will crowd their
judgment, they are even less capable of pasqening for themselves,
not more.

: What about buying a Kidney even though it is against the policy of UNOS
: (United Network for Organ Sharing). They believe that money should never
: be a factor when deciding who is the recipient of a donated organ. They
: say it is unethical and recipients should be prioritized based on
: medical need.

Medical need and likelihood of success. People who don't follow
pre-op instructions are presumed to be less likely to put in the
effort necesssary for success afterward, and are bumped down in
priority. Similarly, an elderly person with a very present family as a
support system would be ahead on line of their counterpart who doesn't.
(I often get a lift into the city for my morning commute with someone
on a lung and heart transplant panel. She gives her poseiq a run for
his money...)

A question is also (and this is more halachically significant) whether
more lives are risked overall if one lets individual recipients to
buy their way to the head of the line. That goes beyond the ethics of
penalizing someone too much for their poverty.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 196
***************************************

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..."