Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 27

Tue, 28 Feb 2012

• 1. Rabbinical ruling causes havoc on elevators (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Update to Rabbinical ruling causes havoc on elevators (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: girsa d'yankusa (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Clear Thinking about Male Homosexuals (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Why olive oil needs a hechsher (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: The Superbowl Maariv (Harry Maryles)
• 7. Re: evolution [was: Clear Thinking about Male Homosexuals] (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Clear Thinking about Male Homosexuals (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Ibn Ezra on the Moon (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: Corporate Entities (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: girsa d'yankusa (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Ibn Ezra on the Moon (Poppers, Michael)
• 13. Re: Corporate Entities (Micha Berger)

 From http://tinyurl.com/84nep3l


New decree forbids use of any kind of elevator on the Sabbath

<http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&;where1=JERUSALEM&sty=h&form=msdate>JERUSALEM 
? The Jewish day of rest has become a bit more labor-intensive for Yosef Ball.

The Orthodox Jew and his wife are no longer using 
elevators custom-built for the Jewish Sabbath, 
ever since a rabbinical ruling last month 
outlawed them. Instead, they have been hiking up 
seven flights of stairs to get home each 
Saturday, lugging with them their five young children and a double stroller.

<Snip>

Debate over elevators reignited

The ruling last month by one of Israel's leading 
rabbis, calling the elevators a no-go, has 
reignited a vigorous debate over the lifts, 
forcing Orthodox Jews living on top floors to 
decide if they're up for the steep hike home from synagogue on Saturdays.

The decision stretches far beyond Israel's 
borders. Buildings with Shabbat elevators are 
common in Orthodox communities around the world, 
and residents in places as far away as New York 
are now struggling with how to interpret the ruling.

Jacob Goldman, a real estate agent in an Orthodox 
neighborhood in Manhattan's Lower East Side, said 
residents are not rushing to change their 
routines. Landlords and building managers have to 
think about the decree's possible implications 
but aren't likely to take any drastic measures.

<Snip>

Hospitals and hotels catering to Orthodox Jews 
have also had to weigh how to address the 
elevator decree. The plush David Citadel Hotel in 
Jerusalem said it will leave it up to visitors to 
decide whether to use one of the four Sabbath 
elevators, but expects religious guests to 
request rooms on the lower of its 10 floors.

Jerusalem's 10-floor Shaare Zedek hospital said 
it has not received any directive on the matter 
and will continue operating its Sabbath elevators as usual.

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/20120227/617c7c8f/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/84nep3l


New decree forbids use of any kind of elevator on the Sabbath

When I sent this out I did not realize that the article is from 
10/26/2009.  Sorry.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120227/a0414d71/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 03:42:57PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> I vividly remember one of my high school rebbeim insisting that Yom  
> Kippur is a Yom Simcha.  Recently I encountered (Massaches Sofrim 19:6):  
> "ein mazkirin bo [on YK] lo moed v'lo simchah she'ain simchah b'lo 
> achilah".
>
> Has my memory failed or am I missing something?

What about the last mishnah in Taanis?
    Amar R' Shim'on ben Gamliel:
    Lo hayu yamim tovim liYsrael ke15 be'Av ukeYHK.

The gemara takes YK for granted, because it has selichah umechilah and is
the anniversary of the 2nd luchos.

The (Y-mi 4:7, vilna 26a) says it's a day of kaparah. Interesting that
the Bavli then chose the two other terms. Related MIGHT be whether YK
is a happy day even without the evidence of the tolaas shani removing
all doubt that kaparah was indeed achieved. The Y-mi implies it isn't,
and the Bavli implies that YK today retains its happy nature. Which fits
the Bavli also mentioning the 2nd luchos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 

From: "Jonathan Baker" _jjbaker@panix.com_ (mailto:jjba...@panix.com) 

> [2]  It  is not true that people feel no instinctive revulsion at  
>  father-daughter incest.  On the contrary, what Lot did with his  
daughters  is 
> considered something shameful and disgusting, and  the daughter who named 
her  child 
> "Moav -- from Father" -- is  condemned as particularly brazen.  [--TK]

>>Actually, the  evidence you cite, that it is condemned, attests exactly 
the
opposite of what  you want to prove.  Lot's daughters was a natural act,
for stated  reasons.  It is condemned BY THE TORAH, which DEFINES incest
as an  illegal act.  So Lot's daughters are prima facie evidence that 
incest  is natural, if not normative.

 
In fact, the Gemara in, I think, Shabbos, somewhere in the 80s I  think, 
says that Bnei Yisrael cried over their [forbidden] relations when  they
were given the Torah, because now those relationships were defined  as
forbidden.<<



name: jon  baker             






>>>>>
 
No not natural, they had to get their father drunk before he would commit  
such an act.  And their stated reason was that there were no other men in  
the world -- otherwise they never would have done such a thing.  And Lot's  
daughters had no obligation to keep the Torah, so they would not have been  
condemned as brazen for failing to keep the Torah.  It is not even  forbidden 
as one of the sheva mitzvos!  But it is nevertheless considered  an ugly 
and shameful act which even goyim would find shameful.
 
There is no case in the Torah where an Israelite married or had a  
relationship with his daughter.  Avraham married a half-sister (not  stated in the 
text though), Yakov married two sisters, Yehudah married his  daughter-in-law 
yibumically, Amram married his aunt.  One could imagine the  Jews being 
upset at finding out that these relationships will not be permitted  in the 
future, but nowhere is there a hint of a suggestion of anyone marrying or  
wanting to marry his own daughter.
 

--Toby  Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120227/16ed9663/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbi Akiva Padwa, Senior Rabbinical Coordinator London Beth Din Kashrut
Division wrote:
> The London Beth Din does not certify or even approve any vegetable oil
> which is refined and deodorised in the same refinery as tallow (Chelev).
> This means that we do not approve oils that are processed on the same
> refinery and using the same steam system even if they are not actually
> processed on the same equipment.

On 27/02/2012 2:39 PM, martin brody wrote:
> R. Padwa is talking about LBD certification, not their approval policy.

Did you miss the "or even approve" and the "we do not approve"?


On 24/02/2012, martin brody wrote:
> Olive oil or any vegetable oil does not need a hecksher. LBDsays so,
> Page 77 Really Jewish Food Guide. And it didn't 50 years ago when
> R.Moshe said so too.

And on 27/02/2012, martin brody wrote:
> Igros Moshe YD 1:55.

This teshuvah is *not* about "olive oil or any vegetable oil", and
whether one may buy any oil so labelled without a hechsher.  The case
it addresses is where the company has written a letter specifically
guaranteeing that it processes only vegetable oils, and that letter
was not written for kashrus purposes so it's mesiach lefi tumo, and
the question was whether the letter could be believed.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

[First attempt to post this came out garbeled. Hopefully this cleans it up.
-micha]

On Fri, 2/24/12, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> R' Emanuel Feldman posted the following in Cross-Currents. I found the
> question he raises very AishDas-y:

>> The Super Bowl Maariv
>> from Cross-Currents by Emanuel Feldman
>> http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/02/24/th
>> e-super-bowl-maariv/

>> On the morning of the recent Super Bowl football game, a shul in
>> New Jersey sent out this e-mail to its membership:
>>> There will be a minyan for Maariv at __________ Synagogue (name
>>> deliberately omitted) at ten minutes after the beginning of the
>>> Super Bowl halftime.

>> How should one react to this? One could be benevolent, in the spirit
>> of the Berditchever Rebbe who, paraphrasing himself, might have said:
>> "O L-rd, how wondrous is Thy people. Even in the midst of the Super
>> Bowl, they think of Thee!"

>> Or one could be severe and paraphrase Isaiah 1:12: "Mi bikesh zos
>> miyedchem -- who asks this of you, saith the Lo-d, to trample on My
>> holy ground and daven with trivialities in your heart!"....

> RYBS would say there is no synthesis. Halakhah gives us a way to live
> with the resulting dialectic tension, but there is no resolution. The
> conflict is part of what fuels bekhirah.

> But I think this essay gets to the essence of what I was trying to write
> about when I raised the topic of whether Halakhic Man is a sound ideal for
> a community. My argument was that it is not. That halakhah as a creative
> process is something only felt by rabbanim; to the masses, nearly all
> performance is following instructions. And this notion of a dialectic,
> if poorly followed, becomes justification for compromise. Unlike, say,
> Chassidus, which when poorly followed still produces a more observant and
> loyal Jew than if had no ideal; HM if given to the masses will produce
> many weaker Jews. If you forgot this conversation (it's been almost 4
> years), see <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/07/halakhic-community.shtml>.

The Super Bowl Maariv works quite handily with Halakhic Man. This is very
much the way I see living as Jew. The idea that we do not ask why... but
the what.

The classic Brisker Derech HaLimud tells you that that the Ikkar is how to
do the Mitzvah properly. Why we do it is irrelevant to the requirements
of God. In terms of our own human needs we may infuse actions with any
manner of meaning that will enhance our human experience thus better
motivating us. But as it pertains to fulfilling God's will that meaning
is irrelevant.

That's why RYBS uses the example of Neilah as seen thru the eyes of
Halachic Man. he does not see Bein Hashmashos Of YK to have any other
meaning than its relvance to being the last moment the gates of heaven
are open to Teshuva.

The dialectic tension between homo-religiousus and cognitive man is
nothing more than the process by which one arrives at the state of
Halachic man. It is a means and not a result. IOW this is how we arrive
at the what. The why never begins and is unnecessary in fulfilling the
tennents of Judaism -- an obligation based religion.

IMHO this is the correct way to see what God wants of His people.

HM is an ideal to be reached. It does not speak to the fact that human
nature may require other motivations in order to serve God properly. These
motivations can come from different modus operandi which are designed to
appeal to to various different aspects of human nature.Different people
have different needs in that dept.

For example some people need Chasidus to motivate them. Other like
the Yeshiva Experince of Limud HaTorah. Still other like the Mussar
movement. Others see RSRH is the ultimater way to see the fulfillment
of Judaism. Some would not be Frum without Carlebach.

But I maintain that stripped of all these externals -- necessary though
they may be to the individual -- the essense of Judaism if seeing the
world through Halachic eyes as per RYBS.

HM

 

From: "Jonathan Baker" _jjbaker@panix.com_ (mailto:jjba...@panix.com) 

> [3]   "Evolutionary advantage"?  Perhaps you should rather have  said,  
> "survival advantage." Evolution is an unproven hypothesis and even if  it 
did 
> occur, it was Divinely guided. [--TK]

Evolution is a fact, no matter how many Christian zealots like to  claim 
otherwise.  The descent of Man is the unproven hypothesis, the  idea that
natural selection is sufficient to explain the diversity of species  and
the development of  mankind.

name: jon  baker              







>>>>>>
 
You are correct, and it is unfortunate that we have only one word --  
"evolution" -- to describe two different processes, which have been loosely and  
somewhat clumsily called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution."
Microevolution -- e.g., microbes developing immunity to antibiotics -- is a 
 fact, as you say.  Macroevolution -- the development of one species into  
another completely different one, like dinosaurs to birds -- is an unproven  
hypothesis.  Darwin's "explanation" of the mechanism -- "natural selection, 
 survival of the fittest" -- is a trivial and tautological "explanation" 
that  explains nothing, except that those individuals that survive and 
reproduce,  were capable of surviving and reproducing.  
 
I don't know why you throw in  "Christian zealots."  You seem to  be 
simultaneously insulting both Christians and....me!  You are implying  that what I 
know of science is what I got from reading the books of "Christian  
zealots."    That's rather condescending.  First of all, I  have access to both 
science and Torah quite unrelated to anything Christians  write or believe.  
And second of all, even the people you call  "Christian zealots" are fully 
aware that microevolution is "a fact." Who denies  that bacteria can become 
resistant to antibiotics?!
 
There is a spectrum of beliefs among Christians, all the way from a belief  
in the absolute literal word of the Bible -- seven days exactly, the world 
some  5000 years old -- to various possible scenarios that either read 
Bereishis  non-literally or supply various back-stories.  Some Christians  
believe there may have been multiple creations (as the Talmud says, Hashem  
created and destroyed many worlds) and/or non-literal "days" that were actually  
eras.  Some believe in guided evolution (guided /macro/ evolution), some  
don't believe in evolution at all (macro evolution).  
 
The same spectrum of beliefs can be found among Orthodox Jews.  So I  don't 
know why there is a need to condescend to believing Christians, or to  
assume that Jews who believe in a literal seven-day creation somehow got that  
notion from the Christians.  
 
For the record, I myself tend to think that the seven days were  probably 
either [A] seven eras, OR were [B] literal days in which natural  processes 
were so speeded up that what would have normally taken millions of  years, 
happened in one day.  (Really I think [A] and [B] are probably  equivalent -- 
not two different things, but two different ways of looking  at the same 
thing.  What is time, with no clocks and no calendars, no sun  and no moon, and 
no observer?)  Having read -- with avid interest -- many  books by 
scientists who actually believe that evolution  (macroevolution) explains 
everything, I am more than ever convinced that  most of what they write is ad hoc 
"just so" stories, building castles in the air  out of the most tenuous, 
gossamer threads of actual fact.  
 
I have indeed noticed that the majority of secular science writers, who  
write for popular science magazines or the science section of the NY Times, 
are  entirely unaware that there is any distinction between macro and micro  
evolution.  Because one word is used for both, over and over  the smartest 
people keep making simple category mistakes, conflating  entirely different 
processes.   That's another way of saying that the  smartest people aren't 
nearly as smart as they think they are -- and their  condescension towards 
their betters is entirely unearned. I wish I had a  dollar for every time one of 
these idiots savants said triumphantly, "So if you  believe in Genesis, I 
guess you don't believe in modern medicine!?"
 
 
 
--Toby Katz
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120227/5d09a670/attachment-0001.htm>

Rn Toby Katz wrote:

> It is not true that people feel no instinctive revulsion at  
> father-daughter incest.  On the contrary, what Lot did with
> his daughters is considered something shameful and disgusting,
> and the daughter who named her child "Moav -- from Father" --
> is condemned as particularly brazen. ...

R' Jonathan Baker responded:

> Actually, the evidence you cite, that it is condemned, attests
> exactly the opposite of what you want to prove.  Lot's daughters
> was a natural act, for stated reasons.  It is condemned BY THE
> TORAH, which DEFINES incest as an illegal act.  So Lot's daughters
> are prima facie evidence that incest is natural, if not normative.

I disagree with RJB, and we can see this from the plain words of the pesukim, in two ways, either of which would make the point, in my opinion.

First, the older daughter explicitly explained to the younger, "There is no
man in the world with whom we might have normal relations." (19:31) Is it
not obvious that she perceived this situation as an Eis Laasos, and that it
would have been far preferable to repopulate the world in some other
manner?

Second, why did they get Lot drunk? My guess is that they feared he would overrule this decision, and so they forced their psak on him.

On both counts, it seems clear to me, the daughters WERE aware of a taboo on some level, that a father and his daughters should not have relations.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f4c6c05d94d6161d708st03vuc

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I just learned of Abenezra crater, named in his honor, which is
> on the moon at 21.0degS, 11.9degE. See
<http://lupuvictor.blogspot.com/2011/06/geber-abenezra-and-az
ophi-moon-craters.html>

If anyone questions whether "Abenezra" is really named for "Ibn Ezra", the
crater's Wikipedia article cites a reference to http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov<
/a> where the nomenclature is documented. (Just enter "Abenezra" in the
Search box at the top right.)

Akiva Miller



____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Looks 27
Local Woman Reveals Wrinkle Secret That Has Doctors Angry.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f4c67055f25d161f176st06vuc

RMi asked:
 
> Which made me wonder what other corporate entities exist in halakhah:
>     heqdeish
>     the tzibur -- and is that only Benei Yisrael as a whole, or can a
>    city own something?

I would suggest that this list might include any Beis Din qualified to serve as the holder of a loan for Pruzbul purposes.

If I'm not mistaken, this would include any beis din, even an ad hoc beis
din of 3 balabatim. On the other hand, given that most poskim hold shmitta
to be d'rabanan today, this might not be a valid precedent if one wanted to
say that an Ad Hoc Beis Dim Of Three Balabatim was a halachic corporate
entity even for d'Oraisa purposes.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Looks 27
Local Woman Reveals Wrinkle Secret That Has Doctors Angry.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f4c68ec5ff17161ce51st04vuc

R' David Riceman wrote:

> I vividly remember one of my high school rebbeim insisting that
> Yom Kippur is a Yom Simcha.  Recently I encountered (Massaches
> Sofrim 19:6): "ein mazkirin bo [on YK] lo moed v'lo simchah
> she'ain simchah b'lo achilah".
>
> Has my memory failed or am I missing something?

I too have heard many times about simcha on Yom Kippur.

I was going to cite the gemara about Tu B'Av and Yom Kippur, but when I
looked it up (Taanis 30b), I see they are called Yamim Tovim, but the word
"simcha" does not appear.

I also looked up RDR's quote from Sofrim, because I wanted to see it in
context. It seems to me that Sofrim there is establishing the text to be
said in the Yom Tov Amidah, in the paragraph "Vatiten Lanu". I was hoping
to dispose of RDR's question by showing that we simply do not follow
Maseches Sofrim, but it seems that we do: On other Yom Tovim, we say the
phrase "moadim l'simchah", but on RH and YK we omit it -- or at least, MY
machzor does.

RDR's question stands.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f4c71075e229194ae94st01vuc

In Avodah V29n26, R'Micha noted:
> ... just learned of Abenezra crater, named in [ibn Ezra's] honor.... <
By his own [private] testimony, and with his permission, may I note that
R'Micha learned this (as did I :)) from a recent VBM e-lecture -- see
footnote 15 of http://vbm-to
rah.org/archive/parshanut/13parshanut.htm .  Thanks.

P.S. If someone wants to elucidate us on whether "Aben Ezra" means the same
thing as "ibn Ezra" as well as whether "even Ezra" is merely a corruption
of either "Aben Ezra" or the noun aleph-veis-nun, please do so!  Thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 05:39:29AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: If I'm not mistaken, this would include any beis din, even an ad hoc
: beis din of 3 balabatim. On the other hand, given that most poskim hold
: shmitta to be d'rabanan today...

And the others say it's "only" minhag. See the Rama (CM 67:1), who
doesn't hold this way but cites the Rosh. AND the Rama mentions that
our uncertainty about the year of shemitah adds to that a safeiq.

Which I don't understand, since a beraisa says (and the gemara concludes)
churban bayis was in the year after shmittah. (Eirukhin 12a)

But back to our point... Shemitas kesafim doesn't apply to partnerships,
and thus banks don't need to be corporate entities to be exempt. And I
don't think halakhah has the notion of a business being more than an
LP or LLP. (I don't know the difference.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 27
**************************************

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..."