Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 087
Friday, June 11 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Forced Conversion
R' Eli Teitz writes WRT B"Y at Har Sinai:
: B'nei Yisrael had an option. They could have chosen to die. Yes, it is not
: a comfortable option, but it is an option. And as such, they did make a
: choice to convert.
I thought that the Rambam (Hil Gittin) makes it clear that "kofin oso ad
sheyomar 'rotzeh ani'" only works for chiyuvim. So, if you say that this
is bechirah, it still wouldn't work.
I offered in the past an chidush as to why such a get is chal. I suggested
that "rotzeh ani" means "I have ratzon" and not that "I have a ratzon
that overwhelms all other ritzonos, and that's what I willingly choose
to do." Gittin require ratzon, not bechira, and therefore an active
demonstration of that ratzon is sufficient. There, the Rambam explains,
that any Jew who chooses to live in the observant community deep down has
a ratzon to do mitzvos.
In which case, one has to ask whether bechirah or ratzon is required for
conversion.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 11-Jun-99: Shishi, Sh'lach
micha@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 325:32-326:6
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 94a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:36:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: chazal and science
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:
> 18. All the problems of the defintion of death
>
> Again this is a partial list discussed through the ages with a variety
> of possible solutions. However "most" poskim do not simply say we accept
> chazal against modern science.
>
Huh?
How is this a scientific issue? Do scientists know when the soul leaves
the body?
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:36:44 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Chazal and Metizus
CB:>> Your solution is to throw out the scientific
method - <<
A bit of an exaggeration.
It would be more accurate (and rational) to state that I give the Chazal teh
benifit of the doubt when faced with contradictory "evidence" discoverd by the
scientific method.
I would also say the scientific method is flawed by presuppositions.
EG, Someone told me that Darwin MUST be right about his theory because he spent
10-20 years going over his resrach with an eye to detail, and carefully checking
out all of his findings.
CB do you agree that that makes Drwin correct?
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:44:04 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Chazal and metizus
CB:>>a biased view, perhaps, but I think a rational one. <<
sounds like:
1) an oxymoron. How cna one be BOTH biased AND rational at the same time?
Wouldn't rationality demand as a prerequiste an objective detached unbiased
perspective?
2) Are you saying, anmi maamin to science and its findings?
Most religious Christian scinetists I know (inlcuding my college Phsyics
professor who was a practicing Catholic) have FAR more skeptical view towards
science than what you seem to be advocating.
3) How do you deal rationally with science changing its mind? (EG do bran
muffins REALLY prevent colon cancer?) How do you deal with it halachically?
I'll answer my own question from a histroical perspective. (Similar to Hill
seeing teh gulgoles) just as science ahs overtunred the assumptions of 2,000
years ago, it will overturn our assumptions 2,000 years hence. I, for one,
would not base too many assumptions on current science because my hahskofo tells
me that they are only scratching the surface of understanding.
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:57:35 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Chazal and metizus
CB:>> If they are ever proven wrong by scientific means, it is invalid because
these secrets transcend science<<
Or contemporary science has not caught up to Chazal's scientific know-how.
Hypthoesis: Chazal were 3,000 years had of their time scientifically spekaing.
I invite anyone to PROVE, using the scientific method, that Chazal were NOT
ahead of us.
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:04:48 EDT
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject: Re: errors in p'sak
<<
BTW - the theory that HKB"H would
not let a "wrong" psak come out - How does that square with a later bet din
being able to overturn an earlier one in certain circumstances?
>>
I see a significant difference between an error in p'sak, and an overturned
p'sak. The machlokes about whether chicken is meat or neutral is a useful
example.
Before a conclusion was reached on this question, there were 2 different
opinions. Was either one wrong? No. And had halacha been decided like
either one, that decision would have been the correct one, and the other
would have been rejected l'halacha. This does not make it an error. It
merely makes it incorrect to follow.
Once the decision was reached, however, it is an error to follow the rejected
p'sak. But even such errors can befall a Beis Din. After all, what is the
entire concept of Par Heelam Davar if not a case of Sanhedrin erring in
halacha. The protection offered by HaShem does not trickle down to every
decision.
Rather, I think, it might mean that HaShem would not allow a lasting
conclusion that contradicts the basic mitzvos of the Torah. In other words,
for every p'sak that could generate par he'elam davar, the error will
eventually be realized. Whether it would lead to a korban is a technical
matter, not addressed here.
But in situations where there is no underlying contradiction to any mitzva,
then perhaps there is no protection from Heaven. In a situation where a
logical conclusion was made by Chazal, based on their understanding, that
conclusion is correct. And the alternate possibility is rejected l'halacha.
This does not close the door, though, to some future analysis of the basic
presumptions and a different understand of the conclusions.
Also, where there is no contradicition of any mitzva, one might say there is
no real right or wrong. That right is what Sanhedrin at the time, or Chazal,
decided was right, and wrong is all other opinions in that situation. Going
back to the chicken for a moment, it is hard to say that those who felt
chicken was mid'oraysa meat were wrong in their thinking. We just decided
against them. It does not mean that they were in error. Following their
decision today would be an error, but that is a different sort of error.
Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:10:43 EDT
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject: Re: compelling Heaven
<<
Even if you say that a Gentile who engages in some form of idolatry is
punishable based on the definiton of idolatry propounded by the Earthly
Court, why should its requirement to mete out a punishment preclude the
Heavenly Court from exercising its merciful discretion when extenuating
factors point in the direction of mercy? Why is the Heavenly Court unable to
cite the verse "eit la'asot"?
>>
I can not speak for the Heavenly Court, as I have not an officer of said
court.
Seriously, though, we can not and do not understand how HaShem judges. And
anyone who claims to undertand it is better than Moshe Rabbenu. Even Iyov,
who challenged the workings of that Court nevr got an answer to his
questions. He came to the eventual realization that the answer wasn't really
significant.
Emes, which is the only principle in Heaven, and its application are beyond
our comprehension. Mercy, anger, and all other psychological traits are
physical attributes, and might not be applicable in Heaven. It could be
argued that just as yad chazaka is anthropomorphic, and not literal, so too
is charon af. Rambam discusses this. I find his logic comelling. Others do
not. I am sure those others will soon fill much bandwidth with their beliefs.
Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:12:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Administrivia: current topics of conversation
Two notes:
1- In my personal opinion, the subject of chazal and science has started going
around in circles. A LOT of text, but little new ground covered.
2- About allowing that crosspost from mail-jewish. I agree that I should have
spoken to Avi first. However, to explain my decision to allow it, I
considered two factors:
a- We were already discussing nolad;
b- I expect the conversations to go off in different directions because of
the population of the two groups. I expect that on mail-jewish the
discussion will be more halachically oriented, what are the various
precedents. On Avodah, the topic is more likely to be (especially now
that I mention it) why "shinui sheim" -- for example from "I have a
piece of paper" to "I have a fax" -- has significance.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 11-Jun-99: Shishi, Sh'lach
micha@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 325:32-326:6
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 94a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:08:15 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Chazal and metzius
>>
From: "Berger" <rachelbe@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Chazal and Metzius
If I can interject a few Mekorot into this discussion:
In Moreh Nevukhim 3:14, the Rambam clearly states that Hazal ".. did not
have a Masoret on these issues from the Neviim, rather they knew or heard
about them from contemporary experts" (my translation).
===> OR they spoke to people in their own idiom. Similar to Dibro Torah
beloshon benei Odom, Chazal might not have been able to communicate advanced
technology to a backwards society.
...
On the other hand, Rav Akiva Eiger (Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah, 336, Dibur
Hamathil 'Nitna') argues that we should not use the medicines suggested by
Hazal because we don't fully understand them, and people will come to mock
the words of Hazal when their medicines don't work.
===> I concur that we've lost layers of understanding and wisdom behind Chazal's
statements. This loss of mesorah is how I see "niskatnu" we have lost the
pieces of the puzzle that make it all hang together so we fail to see the whole
picture
This position is stated more emphatically by the GR"A (Shulhan Arukh,
Yoreh Deah 179:13, where he quotes the Rambam and dismisses it as a
statement influenced by the Rambam's study of philosophy, which the GRA
rejects.
==> I essentially agree with the GRA. ( I could apoligize for the Rambam as
follows: the Rambam was writing in a philosophicl fashion, but might have been
aware (however subtly) that their is more to than meets the eye. But he limited
the purview of the moreh to deal with the tangible issues. )
I would speculate that many "scientifically oriented" mekkubolim, eg Maharl, Gro
and R. Aryeh Kaplan would hold similar views, that chazal were privy to advanced
knowledge that could not be readily understood by the masses.
Rich Wolpoe
Shalom Berger
Lookstein Center for Jewish Education in the Diaspora
Bar Ilan University
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:24:12 -0400
From: "Michael Poppers" <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
Subject: Avos 4:21 questions
(I thought I had posted this message a few days ago, but it hasn't shown up
in the digest, and, as best as I can tell from my copy of the message and
our e-mail server's logs, it was never sent to this forum. My most sincere
apologies if you see more than one copy.)
To paraphrase from the Mishna in Avos 4:21, three actions/concepts
"motzi'in es ha'adam min ha'olam [lit., remove a person from the world]";
these three are "kavod [lit., honor]," "ta'avah [lit., lust]," and "kin'ah
[lit., envy]." As yet another example of a threesome in Avos, this Mishna
implies the question
(a) Why these three?
It seems to me that one common thread is their mental nature, another the
negative manner in which these words are [first] used in the Torah. (Also
see CWasserman's response in mail-jewish 28:72.) OTOH, this perek speaks
more than once on the proper application of "kavod," while it seems to be
silent re the other two. (FWIW, the near-equality of "kavod kin'ah
ta'avah" and "motzi es ha'adam" in g'matria may also hint at something --
perhaps an expert in that d'rash methodology can help reveal some
understanding.) Also, the formulation "motzi es ha'adam" sounds very
familiar, which leads to my second question:
(b) Where do ChaZaL use the "motzi'in es ha'adam" terminology?
One last, two-part question:
(c) Who exactly is Rabbi Elazar HaKapor? and (d) are any other oral
traditions/laws attributed to him?
Any sources, pointers, etc., as well as your general comments, would be
greatly appreciated...and a good Shabbos to all!
Michael Poppers
Elizabeth, NJ
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: chazal and science
--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> > 18. All the problems of the defintion of death
> >
> > Again this is a partial list discussed through the ages with a
> variety
> > of possible solutions. However "most" poskim do not simply say we
> accept
> > chazal against modern science.
> >
>
> Huh?
>
> How is this a scientific issue? Do scientists know when the soul
> leaves
> the body?
>
You assume that death is defined based on when the soul leaves the
body, as opposed to being based on when the body has no signs of
life. Theoretically, the soul could leave the body before the body
has truly expired or OTOH wait some time after the body has expired.
In fact, your position seems to be that of Rabbi Yaakov Weiner
(author of Rapo Yerape; see that book for a radical shittah based on
the soul leaving the body at a different time when there is a
traumatic death as opposed to when a person is on a respirator). It
is my impression that most who discuss this issue look only at
whether all sign of life have disappeared (and disagree whether those
signs include brain stem death).
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:34:00 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Chazal and Metzius
CB:>>
In other words, halacha is divorced from physical reality - it is artificial,
sollopsistic.<<
Isn't that the essence of drosho on asher yaggidu lochem Yomin us'mol? Even if
they tell you your yomin is smol?
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Torat Eretz Yisrael
A certain correspondent of mine wrote the following in connection to
my posting about the halachic view of trading land for peace:
> Moshe,
>
> I'm not sure if you are actually living in Israel nowadays, but as
> you were in the
> past, you may know what I am referring to below.
>
> Rav Kook in a famous letter to Rabanei Chutz La'aretz discusses the
> differences between
> what is required of a rabbi of Eretz Yisrael vs. one who is
> educated and paskens
> abroad. He isn't the first. The G'marah and later Rambam also
> discuss the issues of
> the authority of Eretz Yisrael in halachic matters vs. Chutz
> La'aretz.
>
> That is why I don't usually discuss matters relating to Hilchat
> Eretz Yisrael on the
> Avodah list. The vast majority of rabbis there are not from Eretz
> Yisrael, nor do they
> pasken from the standing of Eretz Yisrael.
>
> When the topic is Milchemet Mitzvah in Eretz Yisrael, I prefer to
> discuss it with
> rabbis who live in Eretz Yisrael and breathe its air and have been
> influenced by Torat
> Eretz Yisrael.
>
> This is not just a spiritual-meta-physical issue, it has to do with
> the difference in
> psika. You can see the difference when you compare psika of
> Chareidi rabbis in Israel
> who are still tied to Torat Chutz La'aretz vs. the ability and
> power of psika of rabbis
> who are influenced by Torat Eretz Yisrael.
>
Any responses?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:10:11 +0300 (GMT+0300)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #86
>
> Again, there is no utility in paskening public policy; it's just an
> exercise in futility.
>
I didn't understand this statement after Ginsberg himself showed how
the psak of Rav Yosef will determine the vote of Shas.
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:19:08 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #84
Rich Wolpoe wrote:
<<<
David Glassner:>> am taking the Gemoro as it straightforwardly presents the idea
of 'kinah einah para v'rava" on the daf and as all (to my knowledge) Poskim from
the Rambam to the Mishnah B'rurah have understood that idea. If you or R. Dovid
LIfshitz offer a hidush in your interpretation of the sugya and the meaning of
"kinah ein para v'rava" you are saying that for 1500 years, the M'farshim and
the Poskim who were deciding halakha l'maaseh based on that sugya did not
properly understand the sugya. When did this misunderstanding begin? Why is it
less arrogant to impugn the interpretative powers of everyone since the time of
Rav Yosef and Abaye or Rav Ashi, than to say that Rav Yosef was mistaken on a
question of metzius? Even if a reinterpretation of "kinah einah para v'rava"
along the lines of R. Dovid Lifshitz could be logically defended, and b'm'hilat
k'vod torato, I don't think that it can be, it does not eliminate what you call
arrogance, it just aims it in another direction.<<
Good Point.
Question #1 : Would you say dishes used in conjuction with the maggots heter
are now to be deemed treif because of Chazal's (alleged) error in metzius?
>>>
Actually, I think that the halakhic implications of deciding that p'sak that one is allowed to kill a kinah on Shabbat was arrived at based on an incorrect factual premise are not at all clear. Once you accept that kinah para v'rava, it is not at all clear how to go back and reconstruct the sugya and what the implied p'sak should be. But that raises another deeper question. When can we change a p'sak that seems to have been decided in the Talmud? (Relying on the Dor Revi'i, I assume that Talmudic p'sakim are more impregnable than p'sakim that originate in the Geonic or Rishonic periods.)
In volume 3:83 our listowner suggested two approaches to how one would change p'sak in response to a rejection of the premise "kinah eina para v'rava." R. Kook's (apparently echoing the view of the Pahad Yitzhak) a couple of centuries earlier, said that one should be mahmir. R. Dovid Lifshitz sought to find an alternate basis for maintaining the halakha. For reasons already stated, I don't think that approach is tenable, because it would imply that very tiny insects like a parush which the Talmud assumed were para v'rava and were not allowed to be killed on Shabbat would then become permissible to kill.
Now it is not clear whether R. Kook was making a halakhic distinction or an exhoratory observation that it would be appropriate to refrain from killing a kinah on Shabbat even though, mei-ikar ha-din, it is still permitted because that is the decision that Hazal arrived at. If he is saying that mei-ikar ha-din it is still permissible, then the question is why. Is it because, metaphysically, that is how the halakhah must be and Hazal understood that the halakhah must be that it is permissible to kill a kinah. And if they gave one reason, they may still have had a dozen others up their sleave which they didn't bother revealing to us, or, alternatively, we may not have properly understood the one and only true reason that they did give us. This is the idea that Rich seems to be advocating.
Despite some support from the G'ra about Hazal not having communicated all their reasons to us, the Dor Revi'i emphatically rejects such notions as having no halakhic weight. The shofet "who will be in those days" must decide the halakha based on the evidence before him, that means the best evidence available (in light of whatever the best science available has to offer as well as any other relevant evidence including evidence from accupuncturists, herbalists, etc.). But it must be evidence that can be presented and discussed. It can't be evidence that is hidden. Ha-nistarot la-Hasehm v'ha-niglot lanu u-l'vaneinu ad olam. When Hazal could not fathom the depth of R. Meir's reasoning, they did not pasken according to him even though he enlightened the eyes of the wise. Eruvin 13b.
If so, should we not avoid killing a kinah on Shabbat because that is the din, not simply because we accept a humrah on ourselves? According to the Dor Revi'i, at least, the halakhah is what the shofet paskens even when he is mistaken. Another beit din can come along and correct the mistake, but until that happens, the halakha remains fixed according to the p'sak and one may not deviate from it to the right or the left. But after the close of the Talmud, the halakhic decisions embodied in the Talmud cannot be overturned by another beit din, because the Talmud acted in the place of the Sanhedrin and only the Sanhedrin could overturn the p'sak of an earlier Sanhedrin. So whether the halakhah applicable to kinah would or could be changed depends on whether we regard the relevant halakhah as having been determined by the Talmud itself. The Dor Revi'i seemed to think that it had, and therefore the halakhah could not be changed even though we believe (not necessarily "know" bu!
!
!
t that belief would be enough for another Sanhedrin to rely on to overturn the previous p'sak) that it was decided based on an incorrect factual premise. However, as I read the sugya, I'm not so sure, b'm'hilat k'vod torato, that I agree with the Dor Revi'i that the prevailing p'ask is really embedded in the sugya.
<<<
David Glassner's point about rejecting 1500 years of tradition as to how to
understand something hits home. I have no easy answer. However, we have often
seen shver meforshim answered with elegant teirutzim many years later. There
are stories about the Meginei Shlomo and Rashi, that Rashi gave him a yasher
koach for being meyashiv him. Now what happened AFTER Rashi and BEFORE Meginei
Shlomo? Did the velt assume:
1) we have THE definite pesaht in Rashi and Rashi erred
OR
2) We have THE definite peshat in Rashi, Rashi is shver (but not quite in error)
and he
3) As we see it Rashi is Shver, but maybe we do not quite understand Rashi?
Now along comes Meginei Shlomo and says, wait a minute, I can be meyasheiv
Rashi. Wouldn't you be wiling to hazard a guess that by doing so he changed
the popular undrstanding of peshat in Rashi now and again?
>>>
I'm not against hiddush. I'm for hiddush. It is praiseworthy. My point is that every hiddush involves a certain arrogance, because it suggests that the m'hadesh has seen or understood something new, something that no one else saw before him. Makom hinihu li avotai l'hitgader bo. "L'hitgader" means "l'hitgadel" self-aggrandizement. But l'shem shamayim such self-aggrandizement is not only permissible, it is praiseworthy. I have no problem with giving Hazal the benefit of the doubt, but when common sense tells me that a certain position can't be defended any more, I move on.
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
!
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Chazal and metzius
: Even if a reinterpretation of "kinah einah para v'rava" along the lines of
: R. Dovid Lifshitz
I understood R' Dovid to be preserving the halachah, not necessarily the
s'varah. IOW, I didn't think he was necessarily defining "einah para v'rava"
to be in terms the means of piryeh virivyeh lacking mamashus. Rather, that
this is a new s'varah in light of today's science that yields the same p'sak.
And, in fact, there's no statement that R' Dovid feels this will happen whenever
a p'sak is made based on bad science. It could very well be that he meant in
this one case in particular there happens to be no change in p'sak.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 11-Jun-99: Shishi, Sh'lach
micha@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 325:32-326:6
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 94a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:56:17 -0400
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
Subject: Al Hadaf
Al Hadaf is edited by Rabbi Zev Dickstein of Monsey.
There are two address:
Congregation Al Hadaf, PO Box 791, Monsey, NY 10952.
or
Cong Al Hadaf, 17 N Rigaud Rd, Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533
The phone and fax is 914-356-9114.
It is published semi-monthly and is $40 per year
millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:39:30 -0400
> > From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
> > Subject: chickens defining bein hashmasas
> >
> > Al Hadaf (an excellent newsletter to use in conjunction with daf, put out by Rabbi
> > Zev Dickstein
> > of Monsey) quotes the Mahari Brunah as saying that if an egg was laid and a fruit
>
> Could you give some information about Al Hadaf and how to subscribe?
>
> reuven
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:54:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: chazal and science
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:
>
> In fact, your position seems to be that of Rabbi Yaakov Weiner (author
> of Rapo Yerape; see that book for a radical shittah based on the soul
> leaving the body at a different time when there is a traumatic death as
> opposed to when a person is on a respirator). It is my impression that
> most who discuss this issue look only at whether all sign of life have
> disappeared (and disagree whether those signs include brain stem death).
>
My position is that of RSZ Auerbach.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 15:09:57 EDT
From: Alan Davidson <DAVIDSON@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>
Subject: cholov stam
Couldn't it be possible that Rav Moshe was responding to the extent to which
his original heter lead to a situation whereby all but the chassidishe and
the "true centrist" yeshivishe world (Lakewood, Mir, Telshe) had taken
cholov stam to be normative. The fact is Cholov Isroel and Pas Isroel are
dinim of Shulchan Aruch and while there might be little to worry about
currently with most commercially produced milk and bread in the United
States we shouldn't overturn traditional halachos solely b/c their basis
has been mitigated in this generation.
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: chazal and science
Please elaborate. Which tshuvah? What exactly did he say?
Let me also point out that those who look at signs of life do agree
that the lack of signs of life is an indicator that the soul has left
the body. However, unlike R. Weiner, they pay attention only to the
physical signs and do not use machshavah/kabbalah to theorize about
when the soul leaves the body.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:
>
> >
> > In fact, your position seems to be that of Rabbi Yaakov Weiner
> (author
> > of Rapo Yerape; see that book for a radical shittah based on the
> soul
> > leaving the body at a different time when there is a traumatic
> death as
> > opposed to when a person is on a respirator). It is my
> impression that
> > most who discuss this issue look only at whether all sign of life
> have
> > disappeared (and disagree whether those signs include brain stem
> death).
> >
>
> My position is that of RSZ Auerbach.
>
> YGB
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:17:52 EDT
From: Chaim Wasserman <Chaimwass@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Avos 4:28 questions
[Administrators note: A question was asked both here and on
mail-jewish@shamash.org. This rather beautiful answer was posted on
mail-jewish. I secured permission from Avi Felblum, the list owner
to repost it here. For more information about mail-jewish, write Avi
at owner-mail-jewish@aishdas.org. -MB]
Re: Avot 4:28 - the three things which result in "motzi'in es ha'adam
min haolam" The Maggid of Kosenice taught about these three that they
are the reason for the Torah having started before Lech Lecha. For, in
fact, Bereishis and Noach deal with non-Jews,, Lech Lecha being the
first mention of Avraham Avinu, the first Jew. Why, then, include these
two sidrot in the Torah?
His explanation is that there is fundamental necessity for these two
sidrot to teach us of the evils of kin'ah, kavod and ta'avah. [1] Kin'ah
(jealousy) was the reason for the first recorded murder in Cain and
Hevel. [2] Ta'avah (unbridled lust) was the reason for the flood in
Noach's days when the entire world was filled with "chamas" unbridled
lust for things without respect to another's property and [3] Kavod
(desire for honor) is what motivated the building of the Tower of Bavel
as they declared "na'aseh lanu sheim" - let us make for ourselves a
reputation.
These three things, therefore, come to establish from the Torah itself
that "Derech Eretz Kodmah leTorah", certain universal human traits and
conduct need to be understood even before the rest of the Torah.
As for motzi'im haAdam min haTorah - well using chazal's methodology of
classifying all physical existence into a hierarchy of four divisions,
then, humankind (medaber) in the highest realm of physical existence is
by these three traits cast out of his/her world into the next lower
realm of existence which the the animal realm (chai). Simply stated, a
person who is gripped by any of these three traits is, as the Yiddish
has it, "a chaya", an animal or often "a vilde chaya", a wild animal.
chaim wasserman
Go to top.
********************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]