Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 213

Wed, 26 Oct 2011

• 1. mikva use (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Micha Berger) (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Micha Berger) (Micha Berger)
• 4. Knocking on Heaven's Door (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 5. Re: Knocking on Heaven's Door (Micha Berger)
• 6. Birds & Fish in the Mabul (shalomy...@comcast.net)
• 7. Rav Shloime Volbe: Don't Hit Kids Above the Age of... 3 (Prof. Levine)
• 8. eating fish out (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Shevet HaLevi: Is There An Issur For Women To Stare At Men? (Prof. Levine)
• 10. The Role Responsibility and Authority of a Synagogue Rabbi (JOSEPH MOSSERI)
• 11. Re: Elokim and elohim (D&E-H Bannett)
• 12. Re: The sukkah on Shemini Atzeret controversy (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 13. Re: kosher switch (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: mikva use (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: mikva use (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: Shevet HaLevi: Is There An Issur For Women To Stare At Men? (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Zev Sero)
• 18. Re: eating fish out (Zev Sero)

RZS:

<<It's a machlokes rishonim. The Rambam holds that it's de'oraisa, so 
there's no need for a takanah to prevent it. The Ramban holds that it's 
derabanan, and the Rivash held like him, which is why he made his 
takanah that has been accepted by most communities.>>

Where does the Ramban say this? In his tshuva to Rabbeinu Yona (ed. 
Chavel, pp. 158-160) he clearly says that there is no issur, either 
d'orayysa or derabbanan.

It's true that he says that it's a really bad idea: "But you should warn 
them against pilegesh in your town [which R. Chavel takes to mean 
Toledo], because if they know that it's permitted they will they will 
act licentiously (yiznu v'yifritzu) and will have relations with them 
when they are nidos."

But the Ramban is clear that there is no issur derabbanan.  R Chavel 
notes that Rabbeinu Yona and the Rashba both disagreed with him about this.

David Riceman

snip>On 10/26/2011 5:52 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:16:31PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> (i) A man may not gaze at a woman he may not marry.
>>
>> (ii) A man may not gaze at someone or something which may later induce a
>> shichvas zera l'vattalah.
>>
>> (iii) A person may not look at something distracting while reciting
>> krias shma.
>>
>> (iv) A married woman may not go out "v'roshah parua".
> Kol ishah also needs a place on your list.
No, it doesn't.  The list is specifically about laws related to seeing 
women's hair.
>   <snip>  My argument requires assuming
> that sei'ar, shoq and qol are dinim derabannan motivated by (i),
> not instances.
But that can't be true, since (i) is itself d'rabbanan.  v'chi gazrinan 
gezeirah l'gzeirah?
>    <snip>  I
> also think that you overstate it by linking (ii) to SZL rather than
> also trying to prevent hirhurim that don't get that far.
Read the title of EH 23 "issur hotza'as zera l'vatalah udvarim ham'vi'im 
l'kach".  The title and the first din in a siman of SA often serve as a 
general introduction to the whole siman.
>
> I would have instead characterized the idea as saying that (iv) is based
> on Sotah. The existence of this issur, and thus the norm that married
> women's hair is covered, is what motivated a derabbanan linking sei'ar to
> (i).
What I find most puzzling is that (iv) is the one din on the list which 
is almost certainly d'orayysa.

David Riceman

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:58:33AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> Kol ishah also needs a place on your list.

> No, it doesn't.  The list is specifically about laws related to seeing  
> women's hair.

But qol ishah is lumped together in the gemara with sei'ar and shoq,
and all appear in the context of kol hamistaqeil. I meant, your list
of specific issurim into which one can pin sei'ar has to work for kol
ishah too.

>>   <snip>  My argument requires assuming
>> that sei'ar, shoq and qol are dinim derabannan motivated by (i),
>> not instances.

> But that can't be true, since (i) is itself d'rabbanan.  v'chi gazrinan  
> gezeirah l'gzeirah?

How is it two gezeiros? One can't stare, therefore things that make you
stare are assur.

>> I would have instead characterized the idea as saying that (iv) is based
>> on Sotah. The existence of this issur, and thus the norm that married
>> women's hair is covered, is what motivated a derabbanan linking sei'ar to
>> (i).

> What I find most puzzling is that (iv) is the one din on the list which  
> is almost certainly d'orayysa.

Yes, logically derived from a din in sotah.

What's puzzling? I'm saying the deOraisa is logically prior to saying
that (i) kol hamistaqeil (the sugya in which "sei'ar be'ishah ervah"
appears) applies to sei'ar as a second issur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Micha wrote:
When one of us have the attitude, "We have reached the limits of
medicine; all we can do now is pray." Medicine and prayer are orthogonal
approaches to the same problem, and *intellectually* we all know we
need tefillah just as much when the doctor has a clear idea about how
to proceed.

So how do you explain a true non believer (or a less frum believer) who has a major
operation and never utters a prayer, never davens, who has a doctor with the same
mindset and the surgery is a major success? Then you have the most frum Yid with
the same surgery who FFB, davens 3 times a day, never experiences bittul Torah,
gives 20% tzedaka (I think you get the picture) and is 35 years old and dies on the
operating table. So what would the theological response to that be (other than it's
the will of God and we don't know). I know a traditional Jewish man (now 80+) who 
has 2 sons who are Y.U. musmachim. This man's mother came out of the shoah 
barely alive and while on the boat from Europe to America, she took off her shait'l
and threw it into the ocean (and the powerful symbolism is obvious). Is she to be
looked upon as a pariah? Her son (the 80+ man) tells the story to many people, 
many times, not at all in a judgmental way, but rather as one of the ways others 
dealt with such tragedy. I'm also aware that the opposite also occurred -- people
who weren't frum began ba'alei t'shuva. Who's to say why or judge these (or any
people). 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:21:01AM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: So how do you explain a true non believer (or a less frum believer) who has a major
: operation and never utters a prayer, never davens, who has a doctor with the same
: mindset and the surgery is a major success? ...

Who said tefillah correlates with success? Tefillah isn't whining
to G-d util He gives you what you want. Tefillah is turning to the
Almighty because it's natural to cry to one's Tateh when in pain or in
need. Just as you would call your mother when going through a crisis
even in situations where you know she can't help. Actually sometimes
getting help is secondary and tangential. The point is the relationship.

Now sometimes, it turns out that the problem was primarily in order
to get you to turn to Hashem in need, and once one does so, the person
became the kind of person who doesn't need the yisurim in question. But
very often not -- the change in the person caused by expressing and
thus reinforcing one's feelings toward G-d is insufficient reason for
the medical problem to be unnecessary.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Why didn't the fish have to die in the mabul? Was the 
point that the mabul was really only to wipe out humans, 
and the animals died only as an unfortunate by-product 
(so, since the fish could survive the mabul, they didn't 
die, and therefore didn't need to be on the teva)? 

But, if that was the case: Surely HaShem could have 
created a different means for carrying out His plans 
without having to kill off the animals. Why did it have to 
be a flood? Why not a human-specific disease? (He could 
have given mishpocha Noach immunity...). 

And, why did the birds have to be on the teva? Couldn't they 
just fly above the flood? 


*************************************** 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111026/fd4c77ef/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1535

Rav Volbe writes in Sefer Zriah u'Binyan b'Chinuch that even though 
the Gemara says that it is forbidden to hit a kid who is over sixteen 
or according to another opinion 24 years old, according to the way 
things are in our times, he says, one who hits a kid that is only 3 
years old transgresses li'Fnei Iver because the child, even at that 
age, will rebel against his father.

Once upon a time it was possible to hit a child without destroying 
the relationship between the father and the child, nowadays it is no 
longer possible.  Hitting a child will always destroy the 
relationship between the parents and the child. The Sefer Minchas 
Shmuel says in the name of Rav Chaim Volozhin that harsh words do not 
penetrate or make any positive impact and a parent should only speak 
softly and with kindness. If in the times of  Rav Chaim Volozhin this 
was the case, certainly it is true in our times and even more so with 
regards to children.

Times have changed.  Rivka was suitable for marriage at age 
three.  Our kids are old enough to rebel at age three.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111026/6f4120c6/attachment-0001.htm>

<<On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:25:53AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Halachically sveral problems occur to me
: 1. bishul akum

As I understand the method being discussed, the diner personally puts
the double-wrapped fish on the grill, or otherwise participates in the
cooking, e.g. by squeezing a lemon on to the fish before it's wrapped.
Also, at least sushi-grade fish is now ubiquitously eaten raw, and thus
bishul akum doesn't apply.


: 3. identifying the fish as kosher

Not an issue for salmon, which is easily recognised.  Other species
require a skin tag.


On 26/10/2011 5:36 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 4. Nosein ta'am -- you can't say stam keilim einum ben yoman when a
> restaurant kitchen routinely uses the same keilim repeatedly throughout
> the day.
Not an issue.  That's the whole point of the double-wrapping.>>

1. In most cases the Salmon is double wrapped by the Chef as the diner is
not allowed in the kitchen

Does the fact that  Salmon Shushi is eaten raw eliminate bishul akum for
regular non-shushi salmon?

3. I wonder how many of us could distinguish a cut piece of Salmon from
another treif fish?
The fact that some restaurants cheat indicates that many customers cant tell
the difference

4. Nosein Taam - I aslo assumed that was the purpose of the double wrap

Thanks

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111026/28109679/attachment-0001.htm>

From  http://revach.net/article.php?id=4531

The Otzar Haposkim brings from Tshuras Shai (1:125) that a Shul must 
be set up in a way that the women's section is situated in a way that 
they cannot stare at the men.  He brings a raya from Chazal who say 
that the reason why the women were so lengthy in their words when 
Shaul HaMelech came, was in order to enjoy staring at him 
longer.  Rebbi Yosi responds that if you say that explanation you are 
accusing Bnos Yisroel of Znus.  From here he learns that a woman 
staring at the beauty of a man is assur just like the opposite scenario.

However, the Otzar Haposkim brings the Maharit who says that he never 
heard of any Shul that was makpid on this.  He says that men staring 
at women during tefila is assur MiDin but not vice versa.  He also 
brings proof and disproves the raya of the Tshuras Shai.

Rav Vosner (Shevet HaLevi 5:197:2) says that the proof of the Tshuras 
Shai is clear and certainly he is correct that it is assur for a 
woman to stare at a man.  This is a Lav of "Lo Sasuru... Acharei 
Eineichem" and applies to both genders.  However he says that there 
is no need to be machmir to make it impossible for women to see the 
men in Shul.  He says that there is an issur of Histaklus L'Sheim 
Ishus, staring with the intent of marital relations which applies to 
both genders. However the issur of Habata or gazing, only applies to 
men, since they are quicker to have Machshavos.  A woman can gaze at 
a man without any intent. Therefore, in Shul, the women can see the 
men since Habata is permitted, but the men may not see the women at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111026/f87446b5/attachment-0001.htm>

Is anyone familiar if there is any literature on this topic:
The Role Responsibility and Authority of a Synagogue Rabbi.
In Hebrew or English.
?
Also please feel free to respond with your own thoughts and ideas on this topic.
Any sourcess in the Rishonim or Aharonim?
Thanks,
Yosef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111026/1f412b82/attachment-0001.htm>

Re:  <<is there a source which states which ones are which 
in
more vague instances?  For example, Genesis 3:5.  Is the 
word shem
Hashem in that verse?>>

In Heidenheim's me'iti chumash Meor 'Einayim he has a list 
named Meir Netiv which lists the kodesh/chol.  On B'reishit 
3:5  "Ki yodea E'....it states: "Ha-rishon kodesh v'ha-sheni 
chol".


David 

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> WADR, you sound like nitpicking, looking for wiggle room when
> there is none.

Nahhhh, "nitpicking" isn't a strong enough word. What I'm doing is clutching at straws  :-(

> We no longer argue whether or not "Vehilkhisa" belongs in shas.
> (Or other savoraic or gaonic additions.) No acharon suggested,
> for example, putting them in parens like other deletions,
> printing them in kesav Rashi, etc... It is accepted in any
> teshuvah today that this is the masqanah of the gemara. And if
> I overlooked exceptions to my "any teshuvah today", we're still
> definitely talking daas yachid territory. ...
>
> You write that there were gedolim who weren't willing to keep
> the insertions. Who?

My [choose one: understanding, presumption, guess, limud zechus, excuse] is
that I'm referring to those who eat in the house on Shmini Atzeres. Do you
have a better explanation of how they justify themselves? I've been looking
for one for years, and this is the best I've found. If anyone can offer a
better one, please share it.

I totally admit that I'm working kind of backwards here, taking this
practice and building an explanation for it. But it's the best I can do.
I've tried to learn other articles which attempt to explain it, but they
never seem to offer anything better than excuses for why they're not
following the psak of the Gemara. So I've latched onto this idea which
explains that *maybe* the Gemara never really did pasken on this issue.

I don't know the history of these manuscripts. Maybe all the gemaras in
Tzefas and in Litvishe Europe had the word "v'hilchasa", but there were a
minority in Chassidic Europe where the text was different. So perhaps the
minhag to eat in the house in Chassidic Europe got strengthened, even
though no mention of it ever got printed in the Vilna Shas. Maybe, and
maybe not.

Call my logic balabatish if you want; I won't be insulted. But until I see something better, I'm sticking with it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
51 Yr Old Woman Looks 25
Mom Publishes Free Wrinkle Secret That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ea8456eb3144e3a11bst04vuc

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:14:15PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: But with regards to hairs, this is in space, while in the case of the kosher
: switch, the odds you are adding up are in time.

This is a brilliant chiluq. I would like to tweak it a bit, since gilding
the lily is a habit of mine...

: Interestingly, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n136.shtml#14 I
: asked why was it that in the case of using breira to all for terumah, Rabbi
: Meir was not choshesh for the wine cask breaking on shabbas, given that his
: is the shita of bein chayish l'miuta.  And an answer that was sent to me
: privately was that in each case where Rabbi Meir was chayish l'miuta the
: question is whether the person or the object currently belongs to the
: majority class or the minority class, Nowhere, though, do we find R. Meir
: saying that we must be concerned lest something which is a minority
: likelihood may occur to the person or object under consideration.

Rather than writing about space vs time, we already have the concepts of
ika rei'usa and a ruba de'ika laqaman (although here it's the mi'ut). The
hair that would be pulled out is present at the time the decision is
made. Ika rei'usa. You could use the chiluq between a case where the
mi'ut we're trying to ignore is ika leqaman or not. This would explain
both the hair and R' Meir in general.

However, there is another chiluq between the cases.

Despite my earlier thought of linking the two cases -- kosher switch
and hair brushing -- kosher switch is actually far more problematic.
Shutting off the light using the kosher switch isn't a side-effect. It's
not a question of whether this is pesiq reishei or gerama or even less
because the action under discussion is the desired consequence.

May you do a melakhah for the sake of having a < 50% chance of getting
the melakhah itself done? And if you may, do the future opportunities of
possible success add up? For gerama doesn't (at least if leisa leqaman /
distributed over time), but if your primary intent is to set up a chain


About heter isqa... Recall that using credit swaps or other such products,

Also, the thing falling under statistics is different than either of
the other two cases. While
    - the kosher switch involves the probability of your goal outcome, 
    - brushing hair involves the probability of an unwanted outcome but
      lower probability is better,
    - heter isqa is also about an unwanted outcome on a pragmatic level.
      The bank doesn't want to lose money. But it is a desired probability
      on a halachic level -- the risk needs to be measurable in order to
      permit the deal as a heter isqa.
banks productize the risk in their various investments and share it
among separate banks. It's unlike hair or the kosher switch.

Also, recall that using credit swaps or other such products, Heter isqa
doesn't directly depend on the proability of loss, but on the bank taking
on that risk. The risk is what makes it an isqa. But the bank could sell
off the risk, at a profit, and have no probability of loss remaining, and
the heter isqa didn't lose validity. Heter isqa relies on probability,
not outcome. Unlike brushing hair, which bedi'eved, if you brushed your
hair with a brush that was likely to pull hairs and none actually were,
there is no issur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 26/10/2011 10:38 AM, David Riceman wrote:
> Where does the Ramban say this? In his tshuva to Rabbeinu Yona (ed.
> Chavel, pp. 158-160) he clearly says that there is no issur, either
> d'orayysa or derabbanan.
>
> It's true that he says that it's a really bad idea: "But you should
> warn them against pilegesh in your town [which R. Chavel takes to mean
> Toledo], because if they know that it's permitted they will they will
> act licentiously (yiznu v'yifritzu) and will have relations with them
> when they are nidos."

Is that about a pilegesh, or stam a pnuyah?  I don't understand how
anyone can hold that a pnuyah is muteres; if kidushei biah are forbidden
midrabanan because it looks like znus, then kal vachomer that znus mamash
is forbidden.  A pilegesh, OTOH, does not look like znus, so I can
understand the sevara to permit it.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

Pilegesh.  The Ramban construes pilegesh to mean an exclusive sexual 
relationship without benefit of clergy (a former teacher of mine 
described it as "mah shekorim b'anglit living together").  But for the 
Rambam that would be znus.

It sounds like you have a different construal of pilegesh.

David Riceman

On 10/26/2011 4:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>
> Is that about a pilegesh, or stam a pnuyah?  I don't understand how
> anyone can hold that a pnuyah is muteres; if kidushei biah are forbidden
> midrabanan because it looks like znus, then kal vachomer that znus mamash
> is forbidden.  A pilegesh, OTOH, does not look like znus, so I can
> understand the sevara to permit it.
>
>

On 26/10/2011 6:17 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Rav Vosner (Shevet HaLevi 5:197:2) says that the proof of the Tshuras
> Shai is clear and certainly he is correct that it is assur for a woman
> to stare at a man.  This is a Lav of "Lo Sasuru... Acharei Eineichem"
> and applies to both genders.

Isn't the point of the issur as it applies to men that "shelo yeharher
adam bayom, kedei..."?  If so, how can that apply to women?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 26/10/2011 11:02 AM, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
> Why didn't the fish have to die in the mabul?

Fish don't mate with each other; the female lays her eggs, and then
the male fertilises them.  So the whole inyan of interspecies znus
doesn't apply to them.


> And, why did the birds have to be on the teva?  Couldn't they
> just fly above the flood?

For a year?!  Not even a vulture or a condor can do that!

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 26/10/2011 12:11 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> 3. I wonder how many of us could distinguish a cut piece of Salmon from another treif fish?

AIUI there is no treife fish that can be mistaken for salmon.


> The fact that some restaurants cheat indicates that many customers cant tell the difference

I've never heard of anyone cheating with salmon.  With other species,
it is notorious that cheating is rife, and one must see a skin tag.
Back in about 1980, the Melbourne Age found that 50% of fish sellers
in Victoria sell one species as another, and that there is effectively
no government supervision.  I have no reason to believe that anything
has changed in this regard, or that the situation is any better in other
places.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 213
***************************************

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..."