Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 87

Thu, 02 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: Innocent Unsuspecting Drug Mules, Ein SheLiAch LeDeVar Aveira (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Melech (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: ir shel zahav (Zev Sero)
• 4. Sefer Sdei Chemed (was women wearing pants) (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: ein shliach le-dvar averiah (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: the godfather is innocent, should you want to punish him? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Re: the godfather is innocent, should you want to punish him? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: the godfather is innocent, should you want to punish him? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Hankman)
• 10. pikuach nefesh (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Jewish King (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Other Leading Rabbis Forbid Anisakis Worm in Fish (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Other Leading Rabbis Forbid Anisakis Worm in Fish (Goldmeier Family)
• 14. Re: Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Other Leading Rabbis Forbid Anisakis Worm in Fish (Harry Maryles)
• 15. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Hankman)

On 1/06/2011 2:44 AM, Meir Rabi wrote:
> The reason that the spear thrower is Pattur is that his action is
> COMPLETELY impotent since the shield is protecting the target. Unlike
> sending an active fire in the hands of a ChShKatan. Is it not reasonable
> that sending drugs in the hands of unsuspecting innocents who are
> transporting it to and through countries that apply the death penalty
> for such violations is far worse? And is indeed guilty and punishable
> through the BD?

On the contrary, transporting drugs through these countries is *in itself*
completely harmless, just like throwing a spear at a target that's behind
a shield.  If you don't get caught then no harm will result.  And indeed
it must be that the vast majority of people who do this don't get caught,
or it wouldn't be economical to try.  After all, the people behind this
are businessmen, who lost a huge amount of money when their shipment was
found and confiscated; they wouldn't take the risk if it wasn't worth it,
which means each shipment has a good chance of getting through.  Further,
the sender certainly *wants* it to get through; he doesn't intend it to
get caught, and thus he doesn't intend any harm to the patsies.  Therefore
this is is even more of a grama than the gemara's spear thrower, where
the thrower may well have known and intended that the shield would be
removed, and yet is patur bedinei adam.

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

At 12:36 PM 5/31/2011, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>R' Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> > RHS (in the shiur of my other post) took it for granted that
> > Melech means a Jewish government in EY.  He thus felt that the
> > first of the requirements for building a new bet hamikdash has
> > been fulfilled.
> >
> > He further speculated that when Esther's son became king there
> > was a Jewish King over the land of Israel which affected some
> > halachot. When Esther dies Darius lost all contact with Jews and
> > could no longer be considered a Jewish king.
>
>Why would "contact with Jews" be a criterion for the definition of 
>"Jewish king"? I would expect the definition to be either 
>genetic/conversion-based (in which case he would be a Jewish king 
>even after he lost contact with the Jews), or it would also be 
>dependent on Shmiras Hamitzvos, like when we define Jewishness for 
>wine, or minyan, or many other situations (in which case his status 
>would be unchanged before and after Esther's death, unless he 
>actually converted out).
>
>It would help if I knew more about Darius. *Did* he convert out? Did 
>he know of his Jewishness at all? If he did, did he accept that and 
>observe mitzvos? Or did he see himself as a non-Jewish king who was 
>good to the Jews because his mother was Jewish?

There is no assurance that his mother *was* Jewish.  And there are 
numerous reasons to say otherwise.  The idea of Esther as Darius' 
mother is a midrash.  There's also a midrash that says a mal'ach 
replaced Esther in Ahasuerus's bed.  But to add to all of this, 
Darius wasn't Ahasuerus's son.  It's possible that Darius married a 
daughter of Ahasuerus and Esther and that Esther was his 
mother-*in-law*, or that she advised him, and when the midrash refers 
to him as Esther's son, it means this figuratively.  But it's 
unlikely in the extreme that Darius was Jewish.  Consider also the 
midrash that says Nehemiah needed a special heter to be his 
cupbearer, which implies that Darius was not Jewish.

>(Incidentally, my chavrusa raised an interesting question this past 
>Shabbos: According to those who say that Esther and Mordechai were 
>married, and that because of "karka olam" she did not become assur 
>to Mordechai, then is it possible that Darius was really Mordechai's 
>son? Do any meforshim suggest this?)

None that I know of.

What I find frustrating is when one midrash gains popularity because 
it appears in Artscroll or Jewish Action or something like that, and 
people start to lose track of what midrash aggadah is.  In this case, 
there are midrashim that contradict a literal reading of the midrash 
about Darius being Esther's son, but even if there weren't, it still 
isn't something we can use as historical fact.

Pharaoh's daughter's stretchy arm.  Nimrod and Avraham and the fiery 
furnace.  Aggadah is aggadah.  Whether it's literal or not doesn't 
even matter.  The purpose of aggadah is homiletic and didactic.

Lisa

Lisa

On 1/06/2011 10:58 AM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> _http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?/topic/27336-defi
> ning-the-jerusalem-of-gold/_
> _http://menachemmendel.net/blog/2011/05/31/jerusalem-of-gold/_


What's the big deal?  What kind of mystery was this?  All one had to do
was open a gemara and look at Rashi, who translates it in Sotah as "atara
shel zahav, ve'ir shel zahav metzuyeret aleha".  Though in Shabbos he
says it's "kemo nushka", like a brooch, with a city drawn on it.

Also, 215 shekalim is not 10 pounds.  The common minhag is that the five
sela'im (ten shekalim) of pidyon haben are 96 grams, and that surely
includes a margin of error.  Thus 215 shekalim are not much more than
2 kg, or 4.5 lb.

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

At 05:30 PM 6/1/2011, R. Yitzchok Schaffer wrote:

>Thank you very much! Available at:
>
>http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21434&;st=&pgnum=212
>http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20023&;st=&pgnum=141

I find the statement about the errors in the Sefer Sdei Chemed in the 
first reference of great interest.  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110601/eecf2448/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/06/2011 4:58 PM, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
>>
>
> But RnTK's claim has nothing to do with shlichus!	And I don't know if
> the halacha would credit your presumption that the risk was remote. 
> So the question is, what is the halachic status of someone who puts
> someone else's life at risk?  For example, what if anything, would be
> the punishment for someone who blindly throws rocks into an area in
> which someone is standing?  Is he chayiv for anything if he doesn't
> actually hit the person?

"Ein shliach lidvar avera" is not just a specific rule in one case; it's
a general rule that people are moral agents, and nobody is responsible
for what another person does.  That includes things that are not averos
at all; each person decides for himself what to do, and nobody else can
be held responsible, even if he induced that person to do it.  What he
can be responsible for is lifnei iver, giving someone bad advice, and
he's responsible for that whether the person followed the advice or not.

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

R' Meir Rabi:
>
> R Z Sero suggests that
>> According to dinei Torah the godfather is indeed innocent,
>>
>> Not being punishable within the framework of BD does not mean that
>> the gfather is innocent. Is he not Chayev BeDinei Shomayim?
>
> R' ZS:

> I don't know.  Is he?  Ein shliach lidvar avera is not just a technical
> rule, it's a moral truth.  People are moral agents.  <SNIP>

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


Yes, he is. Rambam, Rotzeich U'shmiras Hanefesh, 2:2-5, specifically, the
end of Halachah 2.

KT,
MYG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110601/48bbfd83/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/06/2011 8:43 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
>> R' Meir Rabi:
>>>  R Z Sero suggests that
>>>  According to dinei Torah the godfather is indeed innocent,
>>>  Not being punishable within the framework of BD does not mean that
>>> the gfather is innocent. Is he not Chayev BeDinei Shomayim?

> R' ZS:
>
>> I don't know.  Is he?  Ein shliach lidvar avera is not just a technical
>> rule, it's a moral truth.  People are moral agents. <SNIP>
  
> Yes, he is. Rambam, Rotzeich U'shmiras Hanefesh, 2:2-5, specifically, the end of Halachah 2.

Good point; you're right.  Now my question becomes why he's responsible;
a hired killer is not like an animal, after all.  Unless you say that once
a person has disclosed to you that he's depraved (e.g. by advertising his
services as a hit man) you have to treat him like an animal who has no
bechira?  I don't know; it doesn't sound quite right.

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

On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:12:14PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Good point; you're right.  Now my question becomes why he's responsible;
> a hired killer is not like an animal, after all.  Unless you say that once
> a person has disclosed to you that he's depraved (e.g. by advertising his
> services as a hit man) you have to treat him like an animal who has no
> bechira?  I don't know; it doesn't sound quite right.

Back a step... What's the border between ein shaliach lidvar aveirah,
mesayei'ah, lifnei iveir (not that I think that applies, I'm just trying
to map out the whole field), the chotei umachti and the meisis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

From the responses of RMB and RZS to my post, it is clear that what is
being addressed is the issue of protecting Jews where ever they may be or
where ever our soldiers form a front or a defensive line in protection of
our population and this is not influenced by kedushas ha'Aretz or gevulim
of 
E"Y (by whatever calculation except as a demarcation of the current
presence of Jews in need of protection). Of course those in the shetachim
who put their lives at risk and that of their families are doing so (those
who feel a duty of yishuv ha'Aretz) because they do wish to protect the
land and its gevulim (to the extent they are able) not withstanding the
pikuach nefesh involved. I suspect we are all more or less in agreement on
this.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110601/2f9873f8/attachment-0001.htm>

<<I like the idea of this, since it would make such milkhamos far easier to
understand in terms of native (intuitive) ethics. You can risk m lives to
save n > m lives. But without a source, that doesn't mean it's correct.>>

CI has a question: C an one divert a grenade to save many people but it will
fall
on a few. CI remains with a safek. R. Zilberstein in many shiurim seems to
tend towards allowing it (it has many practical applications). I believe the
Tzitz Eliezer
does not allow based on the CI' safek

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110602/979d18d1/attachment-0001.htm>

<<> He further speculated that when Esther's son became king there
> was a Jewish King over the land of Israel which affected some
> halachot. When Esther dies Darius lost all contact with Jews and
> could no longer be considered a Jewish king.

Why would "contact with Jews" be a criterion for the definition of "Jewish
king"? I would expect the definition to be either genetic/conversion-based
(in which case he would be a Jewish king even after he lost contact with the
Jews), or it would also be dependent on Shmiras Hamitzvos, like when we
define Jewishness for wine, or minyan, or many other situations (in which
case his status would be unchanged before and after Esther's death, unless
he actually converted out).>>

RHS assumes that the definition of a Jewish King involves some connection to
yiddishkeit. It is not the same
as other halachot which only depend on genetics.

Interestingly it seems that when Prince William of Britain married Kate
Middleton, that her mother's family was Jewish
and so their son and possible future king of the United Kingdom would be
halachically Jewish. RHS would hold
that nevertheless he would not be considered a Jewish king.
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110602/53255279/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/44lrysp

Like the Anisakis worm in fresh salmon, it is the 
kashrus issue that never died.  Eighteen months 
ago, the debate raged in the Jewish community ? 
may one consume fish that are infested with the 
Anisakis worm or must one  first removing them from the flesh of the fish?

Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, the leading halachic 
decisor in the United States, has come out 
strongly forbidding the consumption of fish that 
contain the worms.  The letter, to be published 
in an ad this Wednesday in the HaModia, has the 
signatures of Rabbi Feivel Cohen Shlita, Rav 
Dovid Feinstein Shlita  and Rav Aharon Schechter Shlita.

The Brooklyn Vaad HaRabbonim, the Baltimore 
Kashrus agency, and a handful of other Kashrus 
agencies were stringent.  The Orthodox Union, in 
agreement with Rabbi Vay from Jerusalem, however, 
ruled that these worms while still in the flesh 
of the fish are kosher.  [The interview of Rabbi 
Vay may be seen at this 
link 
<http://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=EMtQLb1YmLo>http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=EMtQLb1YmLo]. 
Even the lenient position is of the opinion that 
once the worm has left the fish it is no longer kosher.

The fact that such leading authorities have ruled 
that the fish is forbidden will undoubtedly cause 
many Kashruth Agencies to retool their policies.

?Since the issue involves a possible biblical 
prohibition,? remarked one Rabbi on the Vaad 
HaRabbonim in Queens, ?it is difficult to imagine 
that the OU will remain with the lenient 
position.  This is especially true now that Rabbi 
Feinstein has signed this letter.?

See the above URL for the rest of this article. YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110602/da3db7e0/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/6/2011 3:06 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/44lrysp
>
> Like the Anisakis worm in fresh salmon...

I dont eat fish, so perhaps I am not sure what such fish with worms in 
it looks like, but I feel the need to ask whether one can or cannot eat 
fish that has these worms in it, why would anyone want to? Is it normal 
to eat fish with worms?

I don't eat fish, but I would never eat a wormy piece of meat. Is there 
something different about it because it is fish? Are the worms invisible 
like in the strawberry "infestation" so up to debate as to whether they 
actually exist or not?

kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

On Thu, 6/2/11, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
From http://tinyurl.com/44lrysp

> Like the Anisakis worm in fresh salmon, it is the kashrus issue that
> never died....
> Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, the leading halachic decisor in the United
> States, has come out strongly forbidding ... The letter ... has the
> signatures of Rabbi Feivel Cohen Shlita, Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlita
> and Rav Aharon Schechter Shlita.

> The Brooklyn Vaad HaRabbonim, the Baltimore Kashrus agency, and a
> handful of other Kashrus agencies were stringent. The Orthodox Union,
> in agreement with Rabbi Vay from Jerusalem, however, ruled that these
> worms while still in the flesh of the fish are kosher...

This entire controversy is reminiscent of the controversy about whether
it is permitted to kill lice in Shabbos. The Melacha of Netilas Neshama
applies only to life forms that reproduce sexually. Chazal believed
that lice were spontaneously generated and thus permitted killing them
on Shabbos.
 
Upon the invention of the microscope, it was observed that lice actually
reproduced sexually and thus killing them would in theory be doing a
Melacha on Shabbos.
 
I recall a Shiur wherein Rav Ahron Soloveichik discussed this
issue. Yitzchak Lampronti the great 16th century author of the Pachad
Yitzchak (who was also a physician) decided to overturn the Psak of
Chazal because of new information. He said that since Chazal did
not have the advantage of microscopes they did not know that lice
reproduced sexually. Had they known they would have said that killing
lice on Shabbos is Assur. I recall Rav Ahron saying something like,
"If the Pachad Yitzchakm were alive today, they would put him in Cherem.
 
Rav Ahron held that even in matters of science, if it is mentioned in
the Gemrarah it is true regardless of how we see it today. I presume he
felt that either the psak is based on what we see with the naked eye,
or that the 'lice' mentioned in the Gemarah are not the lice we see
today but some other microscopic creature.
 
(It is interesting to note that Rav Ahron, way back in the late sixties
or early seventies responded to statements about Chazal being fallible
in matters of science by saying that people who say this should be put
in Cherem. Fast forward to today and what is being said about RNS's view
that Chazal occasionally erred in science. I believe those who banned his
books were more upset by this than they were by his methods of resolving
conflicts between Torah and science.)
 
As it relates to the anisakis worm controversy, it seems that the reverse
is true. Rav Dovid Feinstein is now advocating essentially the same
position as the Pachad Yitzchak. He says that now that we can observe
that these worms can migrate rather to than be created within the flesh
of the fish -- we are now forbidden to eat it.
 
I wonder how Rav Ahron would feel about Rav Dovid's Psak (and Rabbi
Feivel Cohen and Rav Aharon Schechter)? Would he say the same thing
about them that he said about the Pachad Yitzchak?
 
HM
Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 
Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/
 
 

RZS wrote:
> Not "notwithstanding" but "because of".  They are protecting the rest of
> the yishuv; their presence makes it more difficult for the enemy to attack
> the rest of the Jews.

Your assertion that "They are protecting the rest of the yishuv" is not
at all obvious or a forgone conclusion. The location at which they may
plant themselves may in fact be detrimental to the overall safety of
the Jews in the Yishuv. They may take up a spot too thinly held and/or
too sparsely populated that will only put their lives at further risk
as well as that of others (IDF) who may be called upon to defend and or
extract them to safety from the untenable position they chose to stake
out. But they do not, I think, see it as a position with its primary goal
of defending Jews as much as an attempt at securing or defending part
of Israel within its gevulim, whichever they may consider relevant in
our time. I think that even many of those religious zionists who move to
the shetachim in the more heavily populated areas near Yerushalayim, may
share the same primary goal as their confrere who move further out, their
primary goal is staking out parts of E"Y rather than protecting Jews.



RMB wrote:
> In which case, it's a matter for generals and perhaps politicians (if you
> can find one you feel comfortable assuming can give an objective answer)
> to decide, nothing to do with qedushah, with historical or legal borders,
> etc...
....
> I like the idea of this, since it would make such milkhamos far easier to
> understand in terms of native (intuitive) ethics.

I think we are on the same wave length here. Whereas the issues of
defending unclear present halachik borders can be an extremely complex
issue and subject to much doubt. Such "doubt" or internal dispute can
easily become a morale eroding question for those in the front lines and
sap some of that much needed and essential commodity.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 87
**************************************

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..."