Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 16

Mon, 31 Jan 2011

• 1. Re: asma al-haq (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: organ donations and techiyat hametim (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: organ donations and techiyat hametim (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Taking A Hat Into A Bathroom (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. arabic or hebrew (Shlomo H. Pick)
• 6. Re: Taking A Hat Into A Bathroom (Rich, Joel)
• 7. bracha on tallit (Eli Turkel)
• 8. R Chiyya Raba (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: just because... (Zev Sero)
• 10. What the Seforim say about "Chumros" (SBA)
• 11. Vayhi bachatzi halayla (Gershon Dubin)
• 12. Re: Further Insight into Yayin Mevushal (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: organ donations and techiyat hametim (Alan Rubin)
• 14. Re: Taking A Hat Into A Bathroom (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Can a Sefer Torah Be Donated or Lent to a Reform Temple? (SBA)
• 16. Re: Can a Sefer Torah Be Donated or Lent to a Reform Temple? (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Can a Sefer Torah Be Donated or Lent to a Reform Temple? (Saul Guberman)

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:45:15AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 10:30 AM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>> _http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-intellect
>> ual-honesty.html
>> the rambam's "accept the truth from whatever source it comes,"
>> in the original....

> No need to run to Arabic.  Here it is in the Rambam's own Hebrew:
> http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3817.htm#24

Similar, but not exactly the same as "qabel ha'emes mimi she'omro".
The Rambam in Qiddush haChodesh 17:24 really only works for things
that can be rigorously proven, "bera'ayos she'ein bahem dufi", and then
the Rambam says trust yourself and your own ability to think out those
ra'ayos rather than care about the source.

That would not include, for example, accepting science you don't fully
understand on the authority of the scientists who do.

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

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:02:37PM +0200, Goldmeier wrote:
> there is a difference between "can" and "will". Perhaps someone kille  
> din the holocaust will be ok by techiyas hameisim because he was killed  
> and did not do it to himself, whereas someone who donates an organ, who  
> did it to himself, will not get his organ back.

Even if he did so to aid others? I have a hard time believing that a
Deity who summed His Derekh with 13 Middos haRachamim would be that harsh.
Your notion is within the realm of possibility, but I would consider
this to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:02:37PM +0200, Goldmeier wrote:
> there is a difference between "can" and "will". Perhaps someone kille  
> din the holocaust will be ok by techiyas hameisim because he was killed  
> and did not do it to himself, whereas someone who donates an organ, who  
> did it to himself, will not get his organ back.

Even if he did so to aid others? I have a hard time believing that a
Deity who summed His Derekh with 13 Middos haRachamim would be that harsh.
Your notion is within the realm of possibility, but I would consider
this to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> SA OC 282:2, and the MB 8:4, citing the Bach, specifies that
> this is in addition to yarmulka.

Regarding the SA: Surely "282:2" has a typo in it, but I can't figure out what you intended. Please correct. Thanks.

Regarding the MB: Are you translating "tallis" as "jacket"? I know that
these are some contexts where "tallis" is any generic garment, but later on
that same MB mentions tefillin, tzitzis, and atifah. I can't imagine that
this "tallis" is anything other than a ritual tallis gadol m'tzuyetzet.

All that having been said, I'd like to mention one of my pet peeves. My
understanding is that the value of wearing a jacket for davening is that it
is a more honorable mode of dress than otherwise. To my dismay, there seem
to be many people who think that the reason to wear a jacket is that one's
shirt should be covered, and that it doesn't matter what one covers it
with. So often, I see people in shul wearing a crumpled old parka or
windbreaker, and in my opinion they'd look much more dressed-up without it.
If anyone can cite sources on this issue, I'd like to see them.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d422a423fcd4de0b76st03vuc

  you are correct but rambam said it better an more succinctly in 8 perakem
shlomo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110128/247b2357/attachment-0001.htm>

 


All that having been said, I'd like to mention one of my pet peeves. My
understanding is that the value of wearing a jacket for davening is that it
is a more honorable mode of dress than otherwise. To my dismay, there seem
to be many people who think that the reason to wear a jacket is that one's
shirt should be covered, and that it doesn't matter what one covers it
with. So often, I see people in shul wearing a crumpled old parka or
windbreaker, and in my opinion they'd look much more dressed-up without it.
If anyone can cite sources on this issue, I'd like to see them.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
R'HS tells that he asked R'YBS why later in life he stopped wearing a
jacket at shacharit. R'YBS told him he had gotten a (family?) mehudar (my
word) pair of tfillin which were too large to fit in a jacket sleeve and
thus he couldn't wear a jacket properly (this goes against the popular one
arm in, tfillin arm out practice commonly seen)
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.

<<.. and because one had intent to put the tallis back on. Which leads to
the counterintuitive (in my intuition's opinion) result that if you take
your tallis off on purpose to put on later, you don't need a berakhah; but
if it slips altogether off unintentionally, you do need one when you put
it back on.>>


there was some confusion about the halacha so a quick summary:
Tur - If one purposely takes off one tallit with the intention of putting it
back on shortly - he has a safek whether one should say a second bracha
He prefers the opinion not to say a second bracha

Bet Yosef - Tallit is like tefillin and so one does say a second bracha

Agur - not to say a second bracha if one is wearing a tallit katan

SA - like Bet Yosef (no surprise)
Rama - like the Tur no bracha if he intended to rewear the tallit
second opinion - like the Agur which is the minhag

MB - like the Tur not to say the bracha if he intended to return the tallit
but if he had no intention then he paskens like the Agur

ROY - not to say a new bracha (against SA!) because of safek brachot lehakel

If the tallit fell off SA (and MB) pasken that if a little is still on then
not to
make a new bracha but if it all falls off then to make a new bracha
ROY - again no bracha because of safek brachot lehakel
RSZA paskens that in modern days if the tallit falls off unintentionally
that
one does not make a bracha. His reasoning is that since we wear a tallit
gadol
for tefilla it is an automatic intention that it stay on and so there is no
hesech
hadat if it falls off

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110128/f9b07e1e/attachment-0001.htm>

<<My entire question is how to understand the CI, not which shitah I would
choose to understand the issue for myself.

Yes, it seems like a huge chiddush, which is why I've been trying to get
someone to confirm it. So far, you and I have been having a back-and-forth
which (until this question of yours) I thought was about clarifying what
I was asking for confirmation of.>>

Following Micha's remarks I decided to revisit Bet Yishai (R Shlomo Fisher)
where he disagrees with CI on why amoraim don'f disagree with tannaim.

One of his objections is that CI seems to take for granted his concept of
2000 years Torah as a given while in fact it is a major chiddush that no one
else
has mentioned. He brings Rashi and others that clearly didnt interpret the
gemara that way. In addition he objects to making conclusions based on an
aggadata.

He brings several gemarot where in fact amoraim outweigh tannaim. One famous
one
is the discussion (yoma 85b) why we violate shabbat to save a life. After
the gemara
bring several tannatic suggestions it concludes with Shmuel who brings
the pasuk of "ve-chai bahem" and that is the one the gemara accepts.

In general according to CI he finds it difficult why amoraim and even
rishonim can disagree
on sources and interpretations of pesukim.

In terms of another discussion CI states explicitly that the generation
after Rebbe
could not disagree because they are on a lower level. R  Fisher doesnt
understand
how that could happen within a generation. However, in any case CI clearly
does NOT distinguish before and after the completion of the Mishnah.

R. Fisher also asks that if Rav is so great that he can disagree with
Tannaim how
come we pasken like R. Yochanan against Rav.


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110129/7d442897/attachment-0001.htm>

> Just because God can supply people with organs after Techiyat Hameitim,
> it doesn't mean that He necessarily will......for example......He can
> bring Moshiach Now, but thus far He has chosen not to.....

I fail to see what difference it makes whether the organ is removed to
help someone else, or left to rot in the ground.  Either way, in order
to refashion a working body Hashem will have to recreate the organ
except for those few who will have died shortly before THM.

But then, I don't understand why people in Chazal's day thought that
cremation was a way to deny THM, and therefore why Chazal declared that
one who has himself cremated has no Chelek.   Surely people realised
that the same God Who can recreate a body from dusty bones can do so
just as easily from ashes.  Surely they didn't think that if someone
was ChV burned in a house fire he would not come back in THM, or that
R Chananya ben Tradion would not come back in THM.  So why were the
apikorsim having themselves burned, and why did Chazal react to it
with such horror?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Arei...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org

From this list (published in the Dushinsky Torah sheet)
The score is 9 against, 2 for [and 1 only for deOyrayseh]

(I have emailed the article to those chevrah on my "Areivim list".
Any others wanting to see it - just ask.)

SBA

My feeling is that not all of the events described in the piyut said at the
seder Vayhi Bachatzi Halayla, were at midnight.  Avrohom Avinu's victory
over the 4 kings, and makas bechoros, definitely were, but such events as
Haman's writing his letters, Belshazar's downfall, Hashem's appearing to
Lavan, etc. are at night, but not necessarily midnight. Can anyone
confirm/deny/comment? Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
$65/Hr Job - 25 Openings
Part-Time job ($20-$65/hr). Requirements: Home Internet Access
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d44e68544aca101bb4st01vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110130/fff7664a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:18:13PM -0500, Rich Wolberg forwarded an
article by R' Chaim Jachter
<http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/15-28_Yayin_Mevushal_and_Non-
Observant_Seder_Guests.htm>
(or <http://bit.ly/iaK29p>) which included:
: The Rosh (Avoda Zara 2:13) wonders why the fact that the wine is
: cooked eliminates the prohibition of wine touched by a Nochri. After
: all, he explains, the reason Chazal instituted this prohibition
: was to prevent intermarriage (see Avoda Zara 36b and Tosafot,
: Avoda Zara 29b s.v. Yayin). Why should cooking the wine eliminate
: concern for intermarriage? The Rosh suggests that since cooked wine
: is relatively uncommon, Chazal did not apply their edict to an unusual
: circumstance. Indeed, we find in many places in the Gemara that Chazal
: do not issue edicts regarding highly unusual circumstances (see, for
: example, Bava Metzia 46b). Not surprisingly, the seemingly ubiquitous
: nature of Yayin Mevushal today has led many to question whether this
: leniency continues to apply in the contemporary setting.

I am confused by this Rosh, since I thought the kelal was that whatever
they weren't gozeriam, we don't simply add our own gezeiros for.

Also, whether common or not, beer is also common, and always was (at
least sheikhar, whether that means beer or both beer and meade), and
wasn't included.

This is why I think the gezeira makes more sense as a "blech effect".
The idea isn't to ban the socialization as to force a reminder when
doing so. Creating issues of kashrus when drinking is sufficient. IF
we understand the point as being a reminder to prevent unthinking
behavior. (The way a blech prevents stirring coals -- not by making it
impossible, but by making Shabbos hard to forget.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Rafi Goldmeier suggested

> there is a difference between "can" and "will". Perhaps someone kille
> din the holocaust will be ok by techiyas hameisim because he was killed
> and did not do it to himself, whereas someone who donates an organ, who
> did it to himself, will not get his organ back.

Once you are 'perhapsing' you can 'perhaps' what you want. All our
organs rot away after death. Perhaps someone who did not donate the
organ when they could have will not get it back whereas someone who
has done someone else such a great benefit by donating their organ
would.

Alan Rubin

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:29:06AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Regarding the MB: Are you translating "tallis" as "jacket"? I know
: that these are some contexts where "tallis" is any generic garment,
: but later on that same MB mentions tefillin, tzitzis, and atifah. I
: can't imagine that this "tallis" is anything other than a ritual tallis
: gadol m'tzuyetzet.

No, I'm translating the kova haqatan that one needs despite having
a tallis over one's head as a requirement to have 2 head coverings.
"Af shehu mekhaseh rosho behatallis gam kein."

Actually, I'm not; I'm repeating an argument for a practice I don't
follow. The implication I was told was that even with atifah, one needs a
2nd head covering, and thus without a tallis over one's head, one needs
something more than a yarmulka.

Add to this that the MB cites the Bach that the hat (yarmulke) plus
tallis is required for all of davening.

So the MB is taken as making the SA's requirement for kisui rosh when
making berakhos or davening to be a second kisui beyond yarmulke.

I do not know how this argument works for wearing a jacket with a
tallis, though. In one case, they take the implication to mean that if
you are davening without a tallis over your head, you need something
else. However, in the other case they don't limit the need for a jacket
to times when they aren't wearing a tallis.

As for me, see the AhS 8:5 who plays down the need for atifas rosh (c.f.
tallis qatan) and thus this whole diyuq halashon in the MB doesn't
come up.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From: "David J Havin" To: "AVODAH" 
Is it permitted for an orthodox synagogue to donate or lend a Sefer Torah to
a reform temple?
>>

What it be any different if the borrower was a catholic church or a Buddhist
temple?

SBA

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:35:23PM +1100, SBA wrote:
: What it be any different if the borrower was a catholic church or a Buddhist
: temple?

Catholicism and Buddhism don't claim to keep its members within the
Jewish community. R does.

This difference is recognized in minhag (halakhah?). Someone whose
mother converted to Catholicism r"l, or himself fell prey to j4j r"l,
who then does teshuvah is obligated at least lekhatchilah to go to the
miqvah in what we (mis-)call "geirus lechumerah". There are questions
about whether we would count him for a minyan without tevillah.

Anyone see this asked of a BT from an R home?

That said, the typical Catholic believes that the words in the Torah were
dictated by God to Moses in the Sinai. (The Catholic Encyc discusses
the machloqes in BB "15e" about the last 8 pesuqim of Devarim.) Their
beliefs about any Torah scroll someone would lend them are MORE similar
to ours than what most R Jews are taught. Again, r"l.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:35, SBA <s...@sba2.com> wrote:

> From: "David J Havin" To: "AVODAH"
> Is it permitted for an orthodox synagogue to donate or lend a Sefer Torah
> to
> a reform temple?
> >>
>
> What it be any different if the borrower was a catholic church or a
> Buddhist
> temple?
>
> SBA


Your examples are probably AZ.  Reform are at worst Aprikorus & according to
many Tinok Shenishbu.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110131/07254daa/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 16
**************************************

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..."