Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 091

Tuesday, June 15 1999

• Rav Kook and vegetarianism
• will I ever catch up?
• Email file (FISH.TXT)
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State
• >From Ha-Aretz June 14 issue
• Definition of death
• Re: Email file (FISH.TXT)
• Novel Ideas for Saving Jewish Lives
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State
• Re: From Ha-Aretz June 14 issue
• R. Soloveitchik on returning land; R. Kook on vegetarianism
• Re: Definition of death
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State
• Re: R. Soloveitchik on returning land; R. Kook on vegetarianism
• Re: Budgeting Time
• kotel
• Re: R. Soloveitchik on returning land; R. Kook on vegetarianism
• Fish and Meat
• Re: Rav Kook and vegetarianism
• Chazal and Metzius
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State

There was an article on vegetarianism by Rabbi Alfred Cohen in the
second volume of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (1981).

He mentions that Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook was asked about rumors that his
father was vegetarian and he denied any such claim.

Nevertheless, Rav Kook mentions several things in favor of the ideal
if not the practice (all are from this article).
In Taaleh Orot Rav Kook writes 

"The long road of development after man's fall (explaining the Gemara
that Adam haRishon was not allowed to eat meat) also requires physical
exertion which will at times require a meat diet which is a tax for
passage to a more enlightened epoch from which animals are not exempt"

In a letter Rav Kook writes that a rabbi should preferably not be a schochet
"For a learned individual a spiritually-nclined person should at the
same time be involved with the slaughter of living creatures and taking
their souls does not accord with the sensitivities of a refined heart.
Although slaughter and eating of living creatures still has to be
accepted in the world nevertheless it is proper that this kind of work
be performed by those people who have not yet reached the level of 
refined sensitivity. Learned people, men of ethics, knowledge and religion
they are fit to be supervisors of the technicalities so that killing
the animal should not become barbaric."

BTW Rabbi Cohen points out that Rav Goren was a vegetarian.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

R. Wolpoe wrote:

Question: Does any major contemporary poseik lemaaseh dispute the
Rambam's 
formulation of the Ikkarim?

The mkubalim assert that, even though God does not have a body, he has a
"dmuth haguf" and they therefore object to the formulation in Yigdal. 
The Aruch HaShulchan alludes to this objection.

David Riceman

EATING MEAT WITH FISH: the danger of eating both together is mentioned
in the gemara in Pesachim 76b and in the TUR YD 116 and YD 116:2
with the danger in inducing TZARAAT (which some scholars have
linked with modern day psoriasis).

Recent research has found that stearic acid found in beef may
actually lower LDL cholesterol (see: American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 1994;60 (Suppl): 1044s ). On the other hand, fish contains
eicosapentaenoic acid which has been found (paradoxically) to INCREASE
lipid peroxidation (J Invest Dermatology 1994;103:151; Intl J Vitamin
Nutrition Res 1994;64: 144; Journal of Nutrition 1992;122:2190; Journal
of Lipid Research 1991; 32:79). In addition, there may be an interaction
in the liver (P450) between stearic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid.
There is extensive literature on fish oil induced diabetes.

In psoriasis there's: increased lipogenesis, increased susceptibility
to diabetes, increased tendency to thrombosis, & elevated plasma lipid levels.

So please, let's not ridicule what Chazal wrote about eating fish with meat !

P.S. We all *know* that the medical remedies in the Gemara are NOT to
be used as they are *primitive* :-) I suggest one reads the January 21st 1995
issue of NEW SCIENTIST (36-40) "Eating away at disease ?"  (for treating
autoimmune disease) and then read the gemara at the end of Gittin. You'll
plotz.

It's the same feeling I got when in 1986 I accidentally stumbled across the
medical journal MEDICAL LEAVES from the early 1940's with a review article
quoting extensive prior research (J Biological Chemistry etc.) showing in
separate articles the deleterious effect of DAM NIDA, shaatnez, basar v'chalav,
non-shechted meat on a certain biological assay. The most interesting thing
was the 60:1 ratio (yup, batel b'shishim) when the effect was no longer
noticeable.

KINIM: let's just say that: a) there are 13 articles in MEDLINE on a certain
topic that fits in precisely with what Chazal indicated; b) I've been privy
(and a certain poster on AVODAH knows what I'm referring to) to some highly
interesting work done in the early 1950's that definitively showed that
it's possible to induce spontaneous generation of cells; c) our hospital's
microbiology lab has investigated the phenomenon; d) in 1976, I personally
replicated (using a Geiger counter from the Geological Institute) another
facet of the experiments done in the late 1930's-mid-1940's; e) clinically,
we are now using a spinoff of this research.

Sorry for being so cryptic in the above explanation but there are reasons
I can't be too explicit. The evidence does converge from no less than 3
separate sources.


Josh

Dr. Josh Backon
backon@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL

<<
I dunno. But look at it this way. Not maintaining a State would sure save
lives. Not having declared it might have saved even more...
>>

I think the writer is looking through highly tinted glasses.

Do you really think if there was no State of Israel, the Jews there would be 
safe from a pogrom?  Who would stand up to defend them?  The UN?

And how about all the Jews taken from Yemen, and Ethiopia, and the former 
USSR, and all the other countries?  Yes, many are not frum, and from Russia 
many are not even Jewish.  But lives have been saved.  And about the 
frumkeit, it is up to us to teach them, not to blame those who let them down. 
 Blame can always be passed around.  It's about time we stood up and actively 
did something.

Hitler didn't measure peyos when killing us, we shouldn't measure them when 
counting lives saved either.  All in all, the Medina has done wonders for 
Torah growth. It is the largest supported of Torah in the world in terms of 
real dollars spent, as well as ancillary services.  The Ba'al T'shuva 
movement in Russia owes its existence to the miracles of the Six Day War.  
All the American youth who somehow manage to get through Yeshiva day school 
education without getting Yahadus totally bashed out of them who end up going 
to Israel for a year, and get turned on again to Judaism...how many would go 
to Palestine?

To say it is better to not have ever been, is to not see the glroy of what 
the Medina has done for the right wing yeshivishe world.  Amazing that the 
largest beneficiaries of that largesse are the ones most vociferously 
antagonistic to its ever having been available.

One last thing...remember Entebbe?  Still think we don't need a Medina to 
stand up for Jews around the world?  We are ALL safer because of the Medina.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Comments anyone?

Break the boundaries cautiously

  By Yair Sheleg

The women's revolution in religious Zionism is continuing to gain
momentum. Now that the phenomenon of women learning Torah has been
accepted, there are signs of tension among the revolutionary women
themselves, between those who are more cautious and those who are more
radical.A symbolic expression of this tension is evident this month in
two conventions of the revolutionary women; the one took place last
Thursday, and was conceived as the first meeting of its kind of all the
teachers in the midrashot (religious schools) that teach Torah to women.
This was the "conservative" assembly, where the women took care not to
utter statements that could be perceived as challenging the time-honored
traditions of the religious world. "We're just getting together to hear
a few lessons," they made it clear to anyone who was interested.


In another month, the second convention, that of the more revolutionary
women, is scheduled to take place in Jerusalem. There, they will not
just be giving Torah lessons, but also dealing with the "nitty-gritty" -
the status of women in modern religious society. The women of this
assembly want to bring about changes in the halachic (legal) status of
women in Judaism. The need for a change in the blessing recited daily by
men, giving thanks that they were not created women, came up in this
contexts months ago, as did the desire to encourage the rise of female
halachic decision makers, rabbis and religious court judges. To evaluate
this trend, one must scrutinize the mechanism for change in the halacha
throughout history.


There is a clear difference between the occasions when the halacha was
"updated" throughout history and the occasions when a change was
demanded but rejected as a dangerous "reform." The common factor uniting
the relinquishment of the prohibition on taking interest on loans and
the permissibility of cultivating land during ritually fallow years (by
selling it) is the fact that in both cases reality forced itself on the
halachic ruling.


However, the halachic decision makers are not rushing to change the
halachic status of women or their attitude to modern culture, because
these are matters of changes in values and not changes in reality
itself. The classic example of this distinction is the attitude towards
secular individuals. As long as such individuals constituted an
insignificant minority, the halachic decision makers felt no need to
change the ruling that such backsliders should be killed as quickly as
possible. But at time when the majority of the Jewish people has become
secular, those who make halachic determinations have hastened to make it
clear that this ruling is no longer valid, on the grounds that this
secular majority is analogous to "infants who have been taken captive"
and do not know another way of life.


This distinction also clearly points to the way in which the desired
halachic change could be brought about: All that is needed is that
enough people insist upon it, until this insistence in turn leads to a
change in reality. Halachic change never takes place "from the ground
up;" the people who want it must make it happen, and only when their
number reaches a critical mass will the halachic establishment follow in
their wake.


There is also a paradox inherent in this process: In the first stage,
the status of those who are trying to bring about the change will be
that of "boundary breakers," whom the establishment will fight. Only in
retrospect, after they receive halachic authorization, will they be
recognized as those who brought about the change that coming generations
will see as essential and inevitable. But there is also a clear
condition for the success of such a move: those who bring about the
change must be true boundary breakers de facto, but not de jure. They
must accept in principle the authority of the halacha at the same time
they are making changes in its specifics. Otherwise, they will truly be
castigated as out of bounds. Only the cautious avoidance of a frontal
attack on the halachic system will ensure that the change will
ultimately be anchored in the halachic canon.


The proof of the possibility of the success of such a move is religious
Zionism itself, which broke through the boundaries set by most of the
important halachic rulers, first through the very fact of its support
for Zionism, and later through the creation of a joint society of men
and women and its openness to the modern world. It succeeded in doing so
only because it made all these radical changes de facto, and had no
pretensions to being an alternative establishment, unlike the
Conservative movement.

RYGB writes:

>That some Rabbonim think it is a scientific issue does not prove that it
>is.

Surely, the converse is also true, i.e., that some Rabbanim think it not
a scientific issue does not prove that it is not.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 6/14/99 4:04:32 PM EST, BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il writes:

> P.S. We all *know* that the medical remedies in the Gemara are NOT to
>  be used as they are *primitive* :-)

Rachmonoh Litzlan, however we do apply the rule of "Nishtanu Hativi'im" see 
in the end of the Sdei Chemed the Birzanher Rav's Kllolim under Nishtanu 
Hativi'im.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

RYGB writes:

>I dunno. But look at it this way. Not maintaining a State would sure save
>lives. Not having declared it might have saved even more...

A statement of dubious probability, dubious provability and dubious
theology.

Had Jews not moved to Germany, they could have avoided the devastation
of TaTNU.  Had Jews not moved to England, they would not have been
messacred at York.  And had they stayed away from the Spain, they would
never have been expelled, nor burned at the stake by the Inquisition
(and as a bonus avoided the contamination of Greco-Arabic philosophy)!
Is this train of thought leading somewhere useful?  I am sorry, but I
can't see how.

In a message dated 6/14/99 4:07:16 PM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> One last thing...remember Entebbe?  Still think we don't need a Medina to 
>  stand up for Jews around the world?  We are ALL safer because of the 
Medina.
>  
With no intention of getting involved in the issue, (and I don't think this 
is what RYGB meant), I am just pointing out that IMHO this is circular 
reasoning, had there not been a Medina the hijacking would not have happened.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/14/99 5:11:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 
 
 There is also a paradox inherent in this process: In the first stage,
 the status of those who are trying to bring about the change will be
 that of "boundary breakers," whom the establishment will fight. Only in
 retrospect, after they receive halachic authorization, will they be
 recognized as those who brought about the change that coming generations
 will see as essential and inevitable. But there is also a clear
 condition for the success of such a move: those who bring about the
 change must be true boundary breakers de facto, but not de jure. They
 must accept in principle the authority of the halacha at the same time
 they are making changes in its specifics. Otherwise, they will truly be
 castigated as out of bounds. Only the cautious avoidance of a frontal
 attack on the halachic system will ensure that the change will
 ultimately be anchored in the halachic canon.
  >>
I believe this was the topic of some spirited discussion on this list in the 
past.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

1. In the 1968 public shiur where the Rav supported returning land for
*genuine* peace, I don't recall his taking a position on whether such a
prospect was likely. His psak was that generals, not rabbanim, ought to
make the decision, just as we entrust medical decisions of life and death 
to doctors. (Of course, given that the generals were divided on the
subject, one needs another principle. The appropriate halakhic extension
of the Rav's position, it seems to me, is that taken by R. Shachter: when
doctors are divided about the situation of a seriously ill patient, we ask
how the patient himself feels--> when military experts cannot agree, we
must ask the people themselves.) On all later occasions known to me, he
did not revise this psak, not did he publicly indicate what the best
policy was. He generally said that we must pray for the Israeli government
to make the right decision. (See also on this the interview he gave Maariv
in 1977, subsequent to his meeting with Premier Begin.)

I was a young teenager when the Rav gave the 1968 shiur (it was one of the
first I heard from him) & I don't have access to any information available
to the discerning general public. I would, however, add that, as it seemed
to me then and now, the Rav's primary objective was not to pasken for the
government, which was not likely to listen to him in any event. It was
rather to assail the position of those who made halakhic pronouncements
about political matters and, in the Rav's opinion, displayed
irresponsibility. Some of the language he used in this connection, if not
quite as sharp as that of Prof. Leibowitz, was worthy of such haredi
thinkers as the Hazon Ish and R. Velvele.

There is an ambiguity in this position. The Rav does not adopt the view
that Israel should always avoid provoking the Gentiles. He favors
settlements in principle, but is willing to sacrifice the right of full
settlement if necessary. The son of a well-known Litvishe Rosh Yeshiva
once told me that his father's position was transparent: all that really
matters is Torah education; the Gush Emunim position was also transparent.
But "your rebbi's" view is that settlement is valuable yet open to
compromise. Perhaps. But that's what he said. And it can certainly be
argued that giving up your rights before negotiations have even begun is
not the way to gain peace with security.

2. R. Kook held that Adam's vegetarianism reflects a deep and true strand
of Jewish thought, and that meat-eating is, in a sense, a concession. In
an essay published in the book LaHai Roi he explained many halakhot (e.g.
basar be-halav, shehita) as an expression of this preference in favor of 
vegetarianism.

Incorrect.

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> RYGB writes:
> 
> >That some Rabbonim think it is a scientific issue does not prove that it
> >is.
> 
> Surely, the converse is also true, i.e., that some Rabbanim think it not
> a scientific issue does not prove that it is not.
> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

True. Looks like only RYZ so far understood my mechuvan. 

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/14/99 4:07:16 PM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:
> 
> > One last thing...remember Entebbe?  Still think we don't need a Medina to 
> >  stand up for Jews around the world?  We are ALL safer because of the 
> Medina.
> >  
> With no intention of getting involved in the issue, (and I don't think this 
> is what RYGB meant), I am just pointing out that IMHO this is circular 
> reasoning, had there not been a Medina the hijacking would not have happened.
> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I thank RSC for his expansion of RYBS's remarks. I note that it seems they
have been taken out of context. He was, it seems, making a comment with
examples as to the inticacies an subtle nuances of the halachic process.
In that context, the point is well taken!

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Shalom Carmy wrote:

> 1. In the 1968 public shiur where the Rav supported returning land for
> *genuine* peace, I don't recall his taking a position on whether such a
> prospect was likely. His psak was that generals, not rabbanim, ought to
> make the decision, just as we entrust medical decisions of life and
> death to doctors. (Of course, given that the generals were divided on
> the subject, one needs another principle. The appropriate halakhic
> extension of the Rav's position, it seems to me, is that taken by R.
> Shachter: when doctors are divided about the situation of a seriously
> ill patient, we ask how the patient himself feels--> when military
> experts cannot agree, we must ask the people themselves.) On all later
> occasions known to me, he did not revise this psak, not did he publicly
> indicate what the best policy was. He generally said that we must pray
> for the Israeli government to make the right decision. (See also on this
> the interview he gave Maariv in 1977, subsequent to his meeting with
> Premier Begin.) 
> 
> I was a young teenager when the Rav gave the 1968 shiur (it was one of
> the first I heard from him) & I don't have access to any information
> available to the discerning general public. I would, however, add that,
> as it seemed to me then and now, the Rav's primary objective was not to
> pasken for the government, which was not likely to listen to him in any
> event. It was rather to assail the position of those who made halakhic
> pronouncements about political matters and, in the Rav's opinion,
> displayed irresponsibility. Some of the language he used in this
> connection, if not quite as sharp as that of Prof. Leibowitz, was worthy
> of such haredi thinkers as the Hazon Ish and R. Velvele. 
> 
> There is an ambiguity in this position. The Rav does not adopt the view
> that Israel should always avoid provoking the Gentiles. He favors
> settlements in principle, but is willing to sacrifice the right of full
> settlement if necessary. The son of a well-known Litvishe Rosh Yeshiva
> once told me that his father's position was transparent: all that really
> matters is Torah education; the Gush Emunim position was also
> transparent.  But "your rebbi's" view is that settlement is valuable yet
> open to compromise. Perhaps. But that's what he said. And it can
> certainly be argued that giving up your rights before negotiations have
> even begun is not the way to gain peace with security. 
> 
> 2. R. Kook held that Adam's vegetarianism reflects a deep and true
> strand of Jewish thought, and that meat-eating is, in a sense, a
> concession. In an essay published in the book LaHai Roi he explained
> many halakhot (e.g.  basar be-halav, shehita) as an expression of this
> preference in favor of vegetarianism. 
> 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In Avoda 3:90, David Riceman asks for suggestions regard what a person
should learn if he has only a limited amount of time per day. This exact
question is discussed in the Mishna Brurah 155:3. See there, and his
sources as well.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

> Among those who ruled the land isn't worth lives (at least currently) is
> R' YB Soloveitchik, who said that if giving back the kotel plaza would save
> even a single net Jewish life, we'd be m'chuyavim to return the plaza.
> 
I once saw that that quote actuall goes back to the Beis Halevi.
Sorry, I dont know the source off hand.

Eli Turkel

In a message dated 6/14/99 6:21:34 PM EST, carmy@ymail.yu.edu writes:

> 2. R. Kook held that Adam's vegetarianism reflects a deep and true strand
>  of Jewish thought
See the Akeida on above issue.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)

In v3n86, Rich Wolpoe writes:
: Re: fish and meat. I do not know if this is based on physilogicalsakkono or 
: whatever.

Fish and meat is an exception to the rule. In general, we disregard Chazal's 
medical advice.

...It's hard to see, though, the connection to tzora'as. In general, the causes
of tzora'as are attributes that put another down in order to raise one's own
esteem -- ga'ava, lashon hara, etc... What does this have to do with fish
and meat?

- -

<<

Would you agree then with Naaman's position that the Rivers in Damosek were 
inherently superior to the muddy Jordan River?

Just what WAS Elisha's point in sending Naaman to dunk in the Yarden?

And how come one is NOT a metzora until a Kohen proounces him to be?  Is metzora
a metzius?  Is it subject to the opinion/decision of the observer?

Rich Wolpoe

Before I too located that footnote of Rabbi Cohen's (note 12, page 44) I had
done my own research, and it supports Rabbi Cohen's findings. The Nazir of
Yerushalayim was a talmid muvhak of Rav Kook. His son is the chief rabbi of
Haifa and his son-in-law was Rav Goren. Acording to the Nazir's daughter-in-law
with whom I corresponded Rav Kook was not a vegetarian, the Nazir was, as are
the nazir's son (Haifa chief rabbi Sha'ar Yashuv Cohen), and his son-in-law (Rav
Goren).

Ari


Eli Turkel wrote:

> There was an article on vegetarianism by Rabbi Alfred Cohen in the
> second volume of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (1981).
>
> He mentions that Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook was asked about rumors that his
> father was vegetarian and he denied any such claim.
> .....
>
> BTW Rabbi Cohen points out that Rav Goren was a vegetarian.
>
> Kol Tuv,
> Eli Turkel

Esteemed listowner Micha:

>>So, when Chazal describe a natural phenomenon (such as the gestational period 
of snakes) that has been repeatedly disproven by observational data, I'm 
inclined to believe they were either wrong, or (more likely) speaking b'derech 
mashal and not about snake reproductivity at all.<<

And my point is, why PRESUME they are wrong when they might have been correct 
all along at a non-literal level?

Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 6/14/99 5:07:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, EDTeitz@aol.com 
writes:

<< Hitler didn't measure peyos when killing us, we shouldn't measure them 
when 
 counting lives saved either.  All in all, the Medina has done wonders for 
 Torah growth. It is the largest supported of Torah in the world in terms of 
 real dollars spent, as well as ancillary services.  The Ba'al T'shuva 
 movement in Russia owes its existence to the miracles of the Six Day War.  
 All the American youth who somehow manage to get through Yeshiva day school 
 education without getting Yahadus totally bashed out of them who end up 
going 
 to Israel for a year, and get turned on again to Judaism...how many would go 
 to Palestine?
 
 To say it is better to not have ever been, is to not see the glroy of what 
 the Medina has done for the right wing yeshivishe world.  Amazing that the 
 largest beneficiaries of that largesse are the ones most vociferously 
 antagonistic to its ever having been available. >>


R' Teitz is not saying it emphatically enough. The (unprovable) fact is, 
there would be very little left of Yahadut without the State of Israel. The 
small Yishuv would have been annhilated long ago, and there would probably be 
a few enclaves of learning based communities in the U.S., but the very fact 
of the existence of Medinat Yisrael has been what has sustained the post- 
Holocaust generation of Jews. 
As great as the Yeshivot in the U.S. are, they pale in comparision with what 
has been achieved in Israel. The real forward motion in Psak, in scholarship, 
in Jewish thought, has passed from the last of the Europeans living in 
America, to the vibrant Torah community in Israel. This applies across the 
whole spectrum of the Jewish world.

Jordan

********************


[ 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         ]