Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 167

Monday, August 16 1999

• Re: Chazal had access to advanced technology (?)
• Brushing teeth on Shabbos: Rav Weiss' Psak
• Re: Brushing teeth on Shabbos: Rav Weiss' Psak
• Can it help to reverse the psak?
• Re: Can it help to reverse the psak?
• Re: Electricity is not esh. Do we alter halakha?
• Re: Ma'aseh B'reishis
• Re: Large gatherings
• Re: Shemiros
• Mishne in Shkolim and public health
• Re: Repeating for vocalization change
• Melech and Beis Din
• Re: Erroneous Psak
• MItvos Ma'asiyos of the Season
• software piracy
• Repeating verses for uncertain vocalization
• Large gatherings
• Re: Mishne in Shkolim and public health
• Frum but not good or good but not frum...is one better?
• Hanging Shmiroth in Windows
• Brushing Teeth
• Dam Dom
• Public Health

>Chazal's access to advanced technology is not so much different then Da Vinci 
>illustrating helicopters or the science fiction of Jules Verne.  It's closely 
>related to intuitve foresight, of extrapolating what life COULD be, etc.  It's 
>also about mysticism which we consider to be "magical".  ...

....

>I am also NOT saying that Chazal were aware of all the nuts and bolts of this 
>tehcnology

First, a terminological note.  Technology IS the "nuts and bolts."  What you're talking about is something different, and I like your term "intuitive foresight."  Saying "Chazal had access to advanced technology" makes it sound like aliens came down from outer space and handed them a gallium-arsenide computer chip.

Accepting that you're correct (which I'm a lot more sure of now that you explained it), such intuitive foresight is remarkable, but I think we find it in non-Jewish texts of antiquity as well (hence, I suppose, your comments about Jules Verne and da Vinci).  When people say (for example) that Democritus anticipated atomic theory they don't mean that he knew how to calculate the orbitals of the electron -- rather, he anticipated what atoms might be like.

So, if we're to try and distinguish intuitive wisdom from social advice (do we have to be the Gra to even try?), it would be necessary to look into what other folks knew and when they knew it.  E.g.: do we find meat-fish prohibitions in non-Jewish codes?

Sholem Berger

From Shlom B Abeles <sba"blaze.net.au>
Subject: Brushing teeth on Shabbos: Rav Weiss' Psak

Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Most people I know don't brush their teeth on Shabbos.... I was
 >told that R. Schachter & R. Soloveitchik believed that it was
>permitted and not memarei'ach  ...as I  recall
>Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss believes that brushing teeth is
>uvdah d'chol. .. it sounded that to him tooth
>brushing is not shabbosdik because it's
>completely foreign to shabbos--it's just not done <<

In fact,  Rav Weiss zt'l in his Tshuvos Minchas
 Yitzchok  (vol 3-48, 50 & vol. 5-104) writes
 that IN ADDITION  to concerns with Sechita,
 (Kibus?), Memare'ach, Assias Chabura, tearing
or breaking the bristles of the toothbrush there
 is ALSO  the problem of Uvda D'chol.

(I will fax copies of the Tshuvos to those interested)

The Tshuvos Chukei Chaim (by R' C Y Kenig) vol 2, 103,
 also  cites similar similar reasons for
banning use on Shabbos.

SBA

--- SBA <sba@blaze.net.au> wrote:
> From Shlom B Abeles <sba"blaze.net.au>
> Subject: Brushing teeth on Shabbos: Rav Weiss' Psak
> 
> Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >>Most people I know don't brush their teeth on Shabbos.... I was
>  >told that R. Schachter & R. Soloveitchik believed that it was
> >permitted and not memarei'ach  ...as I  recall
> >Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss believes that brushing teeth is
> >uvdah d'chol. .. it sounded that to him tooth
> >brushing is not shabbosdik because it's
> >completely foreign to shabbos--it's just not done <<
> 
> In fact,  Rav Weiss zt'l in his Tshuvos Minchas
>  Yitzchok  (vol 3-48, 50 & vol. 5-104) writes
>  that IN ADDITION  to concerns with Sechita,
>  (Kibus?), Memare'ach, Assias Chabura, tearing
> or breaking the bristles of the toothbrush there
>  is ALSO  the problem of Uvda D'chol.

I didn't mean to imply that uvda d'chol is his ONLY reason.  However,
presumably R.Weiss meant that uvda d'chol, by itself, would be a
reason to prohibit (i.e., NOT that it's uvda d'chol because it's
anyway assur for reasons of sechita, etc.; if that were the case, all
isurei shabbat would also be assur because of uvda d'chol).  I always
found uvda d'chol to be a difficult argument in the case of brushing
teeth.  Is it not "shabbosdik" because you are not used to it?  And
in a family which follows R. Soloveitchik zt'l it is shabbosdik
because they are used to it?  Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In v3n164, Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes:
: Yes.  It should make it vanish.  It's a minhag ta'ut--based on
: incorrect information.  A minhag yisrael that is binding is one which
: spread for "legitimate" reasons.

There are at least two usages of the word minhag: a- custom; b- the p'sak
followed by a community.

Is the expression "minhag ta'us" used for piskei halachah? It would make
my position in this debate much stronger if it were, but I don't think
it is. Instead, I appeal to the Chasidei Ashkenaz, Chassidim, Talmidei
haGra, the Briskers, the Ba'alei Mussar, R' Kook on Kinim, even R' Moshe
(who took two, not three matzos for his seder) as precedent. But I don't
think the term minhag ta'us in its technical sense applies. I apologize for
abusing the expression in the past.

On the same topic, in v3n163 D or E-H Bannett <dbnet@ibm.net> writes:
: As to your "presumptuous to assume that we have it right", I agree and
: have a little story. While RShZA simply says "ma e'eseh", a custom is a
: custom and cannot be changed...

Minor correction. What RSZA says (translation D or E-H Bannet's): "But what
can I do, kvar hora zaken, the Gaon R' Yitzhak Shmelkes in his Shu"t Bet
Yitzhak..." He says a p'sak is a p'sak and can not be changed.

My great-grandfather, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger (talmid muvhak and ben
bayis of the Ohr Samei'ach -- for that matter, the only boy to grow up in
his home) was in a similar position. He has two teshuvos about electricity
on Shabbos an Y"T. In the first, he was pretty meikil. The second is more
about acharei rabim lihatos.

Without having access to RSZA's words, I'd assume that his intent was similar
to RYAAK's. It's not a matter of thinking the current p'sak wrong as much
as conceeding to eilu va'eilu .. vihalachah ki-... The other opinion is
equally true, and was the one supported by halachic process. IOW, I wouldn't
insist either felt the current p'sak was *false*, i.e. a ta'us.

But even if not, R' Kook's statement about kinim was that we overturn a
p'sak based on a misunderstanding of the situation, but only lichumrah.
Which would exclude being meikil on electricity.

-mi

PS: When your name isn't obvious from your email "From:" line, could you
please sign your email? TIA!

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Aug-99: Levi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 357:4-358:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 7

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> In v3n164, Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes:
> : Yes.  It should make it vanish.  It's a minhag ta'ut--based on
> : incorrect information.  A minhag yisrael that is binding is one
> which
> : spread for "legitimate" reasons.
> 
> There are at least two usages of the word minhag: a- custom; b- the
> p'sak
> followed by a community.
> 
> Is the expression "minhag ta'us" used for piskei halachah? It would
> make
> my position in this debate much stronger if it were, but I don't
> think
> it is. 

I agree that minhag ta'ut does not apply for piskei halacha. 
However, if you review the shakla v'tarya between myself and R.
Bannett, you'll note that R. Bannett argued that even though the
original psak of the Bet Yitzchak was wrong, it caused klal yisrael
have the minhag not to use electricity (i.e., klal yisrael maintained
that minhag despite statements by many poskim that electricity is
generally not aish) and that minhag cannot be overturned.  My
argument is that since, as per RSZ Auerbach, the psak of the Bet
Yitzchak was erroneous, the minhag which sprung out of the psak (and
survived the declaration that the psak was erroneous) should not be
binding as it is a minhag ta'ut. 

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In v3n161, Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
: According to my theory that Chazal had access to advanced technology but
: lacked the terminology to express those concepts to their contemporaries, I
: would sepculate that EISH might be a primitive term for a more generic class
: of energy.

In order to have impact on the p'sak on electricity, not only would you have
to say Chazal had a more technically advanced definition of eish, but also
that our leading poskim of the the late 19th and earlier 20th century were
aware of this definition. It was also apparantly lost amongst today's
gidolim bihora'ah, since today explanations involving boneh / makeh bipatish
are more often cited.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Aug-99: Levi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 357:4-358:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 7

In v3n161, Yitzchok Zirkind <Yzkd@aol.com> asks about my citation of the
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, first intro):
: I read it inside and still see no support to say Mashal for what is written 
: untill Vayechulu, while it is far from complete and fully understood (how and 
: why) see also Ramban, (and Byochid Dorshin shows that one can comprehend a 
: certain amount), "Hasteir Davar" doesn't have to mean Mashal.

Part of the confusion is that no one is really arguing whether or not ma'seh
bireishis, the mabul, the biography of the avos, the exodus, or even Purim
or Chanukah have meaning as mashal. What we're debating is whether ma'aseh
bireishis, the nimshal, i.e. the literal rendition, can be taken as historical.

I would say "hesteir davar" implies that a literal rendition is not
meaningful. Yes, perhaps it can be partially understood, as per "b'yochid"
or the Ramban. However, that's already saying you can't read or even study
peshat and get an explanation of how we came to be. The whole topic that
the nimshal is placed within is beyond complete comprehension.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Aug-99: Levi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 357:4-358:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 7

In v3n146, David Herskovic <david@arctic1.demon.co.uk> writes:
: BTW anyone heard of 'ki atem hamat mikol hoamim'?

Rashi ad loc explains it to be about anivus. Perhaps he's also troubled
by the idea of calling 3million (+ eirev rav) people "mi'at".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Aug-99: Levi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 357:4-358:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 7

In v1n164, Saul Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu> writes:
: Many people these days hang up various types of "shemiros" in their homes.
: The origins of such things come from as many different sources as their are
: such "shemiros".  I have always had a very great philosophical problem with
: these things, I can't accept that HKB'H would grant hashgachah pratis based
: on wether or not I have a "raziel Hamalakh" in my window.

I can empathize. I have similar problems with ayin hara. The whole idea of
metaphysical causality that is other than "gam zu litova" or "sichar va'onesh".

However, for each A"hSh, there are numerous others who wrote k'mei'os
(R' Yaakov Emden, R' Yonasan Eibshitz -- that's what started the argument, no?)
and recommended use of Sefer Razi'el haMal'ach. The understanding of "tamim
tihyeh im Hashem E-lokecha" that excludes practical Kabbalah seems to be
local to Litta and Germany.

So, while I agree this is not my derech, and would love to hear the other
derech's viewpoint, I can not use as firmly worded an objection as you do.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Aug-99: Levi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 357:4-358:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 7

>You might want to start with Rambam Hil. Nizkei Momon chapter 14, (C"M 409, 
>414, 417, see also S"O Horav Hil. Nizkei Momon 16-25), see also Rambam Hil. 
>Deios 4:23, see also first mishne of Shkolim.
>Kol Tuv
>Yitzchok Zirkind

I haven't had a chance to look at the Rambam yet, but I'd be interested to know where you fit public health into the activities of the beys-din enumerated in Shkolim:

"umesakim es hadrokhim voes horkhovoys": more for ease of transport, I should think;

"vees mikvooys hamayim": to make sure they're kosher, not to expunge infectious disease;

"veoysin kol tsorkhey horabim": a loose interpretation could fit medical needs in, I suppose, but what was the fact of the matter in Mishnaic times?  Bartenura lists some elements of "tsorkhey tsibur" but they're all legal: diney mamonos, diney nefashos.  Even taharas tsoraas (which he lists) is a priestly issue and has no relation to health.

Sholem Berger

From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> - --- "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:

>>                               For example, our baal kriah (the rav was
>> on vacation) decided, after comparing several chumashim, to repeat the 
>> phrase in this week's parsha of "dam/dom naki" (19:10).
 
> Is "dam" vs. "dom" m'shaneh et ha'inyan?  I would think not--that
> it's just an issue of smichut--is dam naki a single phrase (with a
> meteg between dam and naki)?  If it is just an issue of smichut, I
> would think that you shouldn't repeat the word.

So I would think and so he thought.  But he thought it did change
the meaning: dam naki would be "innocent blood", per the Kaplan
chumash (which has dam, like the Massorah), while dom naki (per
Onkelos) is rendered by, e.g., Mendelssohn, and New JPS, as "dom
shel naki" - "blood of an innocent."  Are they both nouns, or is
one a noun and one an adjective?  That seems to be the difference. 
Onkelos renders it "dom zacai", while Targum Yerushalmi has "adam
zacai".
 
  Jonathan Baker     |  Mishenichnas Elul marbim becheshbon hanefesh.
  jjbaker@panix.com  |  Don't know if it's classic like Av, Adar, but is true.

In v3n146, Dr. Rusell Hendel writes:
: In fact this Modifies Moshe Feldmans position that the King worried about
: society
: and the courts about the law.

Contrast with the Maharal (Derech haChaim in a number of places in perek 1). He
points out that each of the five zugos address the same subject, but from
opposite perspectives: the nasi speaks about how to do good, and the av beis
din speaks of how to maintain the law -- chessed vs. din.

(Interestingly [to me, at least], this explains the Zohar's point that Beis
Hillel embodies the sefirah of chessed, and B"Sh that of gevurah. The problem
is that the gemarah says the source of their machlokesin is "shelo shimshu"
-- which appears to say the problem isn't ideological, never mind metaphysical.

(However, students who don't have personal contact with their rebbe aren't
going to learn the difference between the man and the role. Hillel's role
as nasi was to teach chessed. His talmidim, not seeing beyond the role,
dispropotionately saw Torah from the perspective of chessed. And similarly,
the Talmidim of Shammai, the av beis *din*.)

-mi
-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Aug-99: Levi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 357:4-358:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 7

I stand corrected. It's not the role of one's poseik or rav to be machmir
when one's development calls for it. That role is more that of rebbe or
mashgiach ruchani. It should also be made clear that the advice is LIFNIM
meshuras hadin.

Unlike other posters, I still think there's a place for this kind of
advice.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Aug-99: Levi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 357:4-358:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 7

RYGB recently noted that we (those on the list who contributed to that
discussion) appear to have a problem connecting to mitzvos ma'asiyos.

A number come up as we enter Tishrei. Can anyone give me assistance with them
-- ta'am? A means of taking possession of the mitzvah by customizing practice?

Tangentially, I think tzitzis relates to teshuvah. Not how "vilo sasuru
acharei livavchem vi'acharei eineichem" -- in the future tense, "asher atem
zonim achareihem" -- in the present. Tzitzis serve to stop sinning in same
way we were wont to sin.

Another similarity:

The mishnah writes that one can be yotzei lavan without techeiles, or visa
versa. The same mishnah writes that one can be yotzei tefillah shel rosh
without the shel yad, or visa versa.

The Rambam uses the independence of shel rosh and shel yad to show that the
two are separate mitzvos of the 613. By tzitzis, though, lavan and techeiles
are counted as one mitzvah. Why does he assume that one can be yotzei PART
of a mitzvah when it comes to tzitzis, but by tefillin he assumes the rule
is that one can't?

Another exception to this rule is teshuvah. One who marries "al m'nas she'ani
tzaddik" is married, because he probably did teshuvah. Even though he could
not have done the mitzvah in its entirety -- he never said vidui bipeh!

I word argue that lima'aseh, Hashem has to permit partial teshuvah since
complete teshuvah, a complete overhaul of all of one's flaws, can not be
done in a single ma'aseh. Tzitzis, being an os to assist in bringing one to
teshuvah, therefore inherits this property.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Aug-99: Levi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 357:4-358:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 7

actually my brother-in-law did tell me that there is a kula in the situation 
where a company no longer commercially sells the product in question -- 
which would probably include many dos programs.



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Others wrote:

For example, our baal kriah (the rav
+AD4- was
+AD4- on vacation) decided, after comparing several chumashim, to repeat
+AD4- the
+AD4- phrase in this week's parsha of +ACI-dam/dom naki+ACI- (19:10). Some
+AD4- chumashim say
+AD4- dam-patach (including the Massorah notes in my mikraot gedolot),
+AD4- others
+AD4- say dom-komatz (including the Koren chumash, generally considered
+AD4- very
+AD4- reliable).  Is this normal?  Was it OK?  (The last, I suppose is a
+AD4- question
+AD4- for the LOR).

Is +ACI-dam+ACI- vs. +ACI-dom+ACI- m'shaneh et ha'inyan?  I would think not--that
it's just an issue of smichut--is dam naki a single phrase (with a
meteg between dam and naki)?  If it is just an issue of smichut, I
would think that you shouldn't repeat the word.

I think the distinction is that +ACI-dam+ACI- (patach) means +ACI-blood of+ACIAOw- +ACI-dom+ACI- means
+ACI-blood,+ACI- the noun. Consequently, +ACI-dam naki+ACI- be-smichut should mean +ACI-the
blood of an innocent +AFs-one+AF0AOw- +ACIAIg-dom naki+ACI- would mean +ACI-clean blood+ACI- or
+ACI-innocent blood.+ACI-

Over shabbos, I mentioned the number of 90,000 as posted and was met with
incredulity.  The calculation was that in a 24 hour period, 90,000 people
would each have about one second to pass before the rebbe's ohel.  Ya know,
the guy was right--and a Satmar chasid to boot+ACE-

Can we get some elucidation on this number, please?

NW

In a message dated 8/16/99 9:22:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
bergez01@med.nyu.edu writes:

> I haven't had a chance to look at the Rambam yet, but I'd be interested to 
> know where you fit public health into the activities of the beys-din 
> enumerated in Shkolim:
>  
>  "umesakim es hadrokhim voes horkhovoys": more for ease of transport, I 
> should think;

As part of this Mishne is also in the first Mishne of Moeid Katan, see Moeid 
Katan 5a, and see Ramabm Hil. Rotzeiach Ushmiras Nefesh 8:6.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

A relevant text on this matter is Kiddushin around daf 40-41 which discusses
a "tzaddik sh'eino tov", and a "rasha sh'eino ra".  The gemara says that one
who is good to Heaven and bad to the bri'ot is the t.s.t., while one who is
good to the bri'ot but bad to Heaven is the r.s.r.  Rashi's peirush there is
quite interesting in that he gives more specific examples of the two categories.

An intriguing question which may well have no decisive answer is:  Which is
better?  To be a t.s.t. or an r.s.r?  My instincts tell me that neither is
preferable, though I lean towards the r.s.r. since the t.s.t. inevitably is
mechalel Hashem many times more than the r.s.r is capable of.  In a sense,
the t.s.t. is ra to both Heaven and the bri'ot.


Robert Klein
Be'er Sheva, Israel

I would like to add to Saul's concerns. The Rambam 
in several places (I will give a list if someone wants)
uses the harshest language possible

>>These people have no share in the next world
>>..for they make the Torah a book for physical 
>>..health when it is a book for spiritual health

Therefore does anyone have any strong arguments
for the opposite position?

Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
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.

I thank Carl for reminding me that the heter of brushing
ones teeth is because it is Psik Rayshay dlo nichah lay.

I guess my point then is that if you have healthy teeth
it is permissable ACCORDING TO EVERYBODY to
brush your teeth.

If you have gingivitis (gums disease) then it would be
permissable according to the lo nichah lay approach.

The reason I forgot what Carl said was because I
never fully undrestood "dlo nichah lay".

After all--when the father cuts the chicken's head off
to give his son a ball to play with...it is also lo nichah lay
that the chicken should die (Eg it could still lay eggs)

Does anyone have a good definition of lo nichah lay

Russell Hendel;Moderator Rashi Is Simple;http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
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.

I was quite sympathetic to Moshe's suggestion that 
it is just a question of Semicuth (like ETH, AYTH)

However someone once suggested to me 
that it might be a question of meaning:

DAM-NAKI would mean the 
BLOOD OF AN INNOCENT PERSON

DOM NAKI would mean INNOCENT BLOOD

(The point of the person who said this to me was that 
DAM/DOM is a CONSTRUCT-NOUN difference)

Finally I point out that another way to settle the matter
was suggested on another email group I belong to:
HebLang---I believe there a handful of words like DM
PR etc which all have specific punctuation rules.

But I am sure it is not ONLY semicuth. Consider 

Lev 24:22 vs Num 15:16---in all Chumashim in one it is
MishPAT  ECHAD while in the other it is MishPoT ECHAD

I could go into some of the speculative differences in
meaning but I am curious if anyone knows of a comprehensive
theory

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA; Moderator Rashi Is
Simple;http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
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.

In addition to YZirkinds excellent sources on 
Public Health I add three

1) The laws of Mayim Acharonim come from 
Public Health concerns (or at least 
concern about the health of the public).
 As is well known Mayim acharonim takes
precedence over Netilat yadayim because
 Health Matters take precedence over
Ritual matters (a theme which occurs 
several places in halachah)

2) Try FORBIDDEN FOODS 17:28-32. An interesting 
twist on Kashruth---it DOES subsume 
eating disgusting things

3) From my article "Towards a Definition of Torah":
 we have the interlude between Rav Huna
who asked his son Rabbah why he didn't 
go to Rav Chisda's lectures. When Rabbah said
'Why should I go when he lectures on bathroom 
hygiene' Rav Huna said "all the more
reason to go since it deals with health matters"
 (Shabbath 82a)

I am sure there are many more

Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple; http:/www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
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.

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


[ 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         ]