Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 145

Thursday, March 2 2006

• Adoption
• Re: Adoption
• killing kinim on Shabbat
• Re: krias yam suf
• Re: "Kriyat" Yam Suf
• Fw: RE: zebu and turkey
• RE: zebu and turkey
• RE: zebu and turkey
• Re: Ikkar Ha Din an Chezkas Kashrus
• RE: Adoption
• Re: Kibbud Av v'Em --Prof. Blidstein
• Re: Kibbud Av v'Em --Prof. Blidstein
• One woman make a berakha for another by a MASZ"G
• Sheimos in Megillas Esther

I'm doing research for a shiur on adoption.. Anyone aware of any specific
works comparing the pros and cons of adopting Jewish or non-Jewish babies?
Any mpi hashmua?

KT
Joel Rich

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:33:52PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I'm doing research for a shiur on adoption.. Anyone aware of any specific
: works comparing the pros and cons of adopting Jewish or non-Jewish babies?
: Any mpi hashmua?

I can tell you the pesaqim I've gotten over the years.

The obvious pro of adopting a Jewish baby is that if we don't, the child
will probably go to a non-Jewish home, which qualifies as shmad! My wife
has a phone line that is to be used for incoming calls only for people
looking to find homes for special needs Jewish children, or to adopt one.
According to Rav Dovid Cohen, she is obligated to answer it on Shabbos.
(That's a population that is 80% Downs, where most but not all grow
up to be benei da'as. Most of the rest have spina bifida or criduchat
["cat's cry"] syndrome. I would think that with a healthy population,
lo kol shekein!)
 
And if the child goes to a Jewish home, say due to a civil law requiring
matching religious preference or ethnicity, it is still a mi'ut who will
be raised to be shomerei Torah umitzvos.

And yes, I use the word shmad, not just assimilation or AZ, deliberately.
Social workers who are passionate about other religions will make a point
of placing one of our children in a home where they will be "saved".

The cons:

1- There are problems with yichud. Many/most poseqim are meiqil, but it
does require an iffy qulah. (I never heard a poseiq suggest that yichud
would be mutar since the laternative is shmad. But why not?)

2- If the adoption is in a country with closed records, and yet you still
somehow learn that you are adopting a Jewish baby, the child may qualify
as a safeiq mamzer. There is a question as to whether a chezqas kashrus
can be assumed amongst mothers who relinquish their infants for adoption.

This would not apply in the US or Israel today, where open adoption
records make establishing the mother's marital history to the low level
of certitude necessary to avoid the chalos sheim mamzer is possible.
Just have your lawyer ask hers. But overseas adoption in Korea, South
America or China are quite common.

3- Being an apitropos beis din for geirus does give one more of the
dinim of parenthood than being a mechaneikh for a Jewish child. In effect,
not only does the geirus bring the child into the greater Jewish family,
it formally appoints you to be in the parenting role. The nearest thing
to a religious adoption service.


Besach hakol, I see it a a non-starter.

On the one hand you have assimilation, AZ and shemad. On the other,
you have as a worst case the pain of raising a safeiq mamzer and perhaps
logistics to avoid yichud. Since /someone/ has to deal with these issues
for the sake of hatzalas nefashos, how can there be a choice to take
the easy route?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

Micha Berger wrote:
> Rather, I'm trying to distinguish between the kinah which is einah
> parah veravah and the louse whose eggs are obvious and well-known in
> antiquity. The louse that is currently most common has visible-sized
> eggs, so RDL's sevarah wouldn't work. However, because the eggs are so
> obvious, the gemara's lashon doesn't either. So, the issue isn't really
> RDL's sevara, but the text vs obvious observational fact.

> By saying there are lice and there are lice one avoids both problems.

Then please explain why, when confronted with the saying of the master
"yosheiv ha-qadosh barukh hu v'zan mi-qarnei re'eimim v'ad beitzei kinim"
the spokesman for the Hakhamim in the Gemara didn't take the opportunity
to distinguish between those kinim with visible eggs and those kinim
with invisible eggs and say that the master was referring to those
kinim with visible eggs whereas the Hakhamim were referring to those
kinim with invisible eggs, which would have been a perfectly sensible
response under your understanding of the Gemara. Instead, the Gemara
resorts to the invention of a new species called beitzei kinim. Please
explain also what the Gemara means by "mina hu d'mikri beitzei kinim"
according to your understanding of the sugya.

David Glasner

> Hashem wanted the nation's faith and
> confidence to manifest so that their certainty of the Sea splitting would
> be felt. The miracle would thereby be enhanced as the People proceeded.
> However, the first few steps, the initial burst forward into the Sea,
> was paramount. Says the Nefesh Hachayim, this expression of Bitachon and
> faith would be a stimulus in Heaven above to effect the miracle and the
> Sea would split before them.

Tangential to the question of why it's called "krias" Yam Suf, but: Chazal
speak of the sea splitting only when Nachshon walked in up to his neck,
but I wonder, how does that square with the wind blowing all night and
drying up the sea -- which makes it seem a somewhat natural rather than
totally supernatural occurrence? And also makes it seem that it took
a while and didn't happen all at once?

 -Toby Katz

For starters, another source apart from Yirmiyahu 22:14 for K-R-A to
mean made wider or enlarge is in Yirmiyahu 4:30.

Now for the clincher: in chemical physics, liquid water is a solid
[there's a 2000 page text on the properties of water I once saw]. In fact,
the head of the mining engineering unit at the Dept of Civil Engineering
at the Technion in Haifa actually developed a special turbine to "shear"
water in 1981-1982.

So the term KRIYA for water could literally mean shear or cut (as chazal
suggest) and not just divide.

KT
Josh (who saw the turbine of Professor Yisrael Lin a"h)

Someone made the following argument, based on his understanding of the CI:
>>The CI writes that the
>>reason we need be careful to have a mesorah for animals is so that we
>>can be familiar with the treifos of that animal and we can recognize
>>an unhealthy animal. It follows that a scientific classification would
>>not cover us, since there still could be significant differences in
>>internal appearances.

Do you mean to say that scientific classifications ignore significant
differences in "internal appearances?"

Do you also mean to say that our empirical observation that, in fact,
there are no significant differences in "internal appearances" is
insufficient?

Do you mean to say that the testimony of expert veterinarians (who note
no such differences) is insufficient as well?

Do you mean to say that scientific classification plus our own physical
examination plus our knowledge that, in fact, the zebu is the oldest known
breed of cattle, are cumulatively insuffient to confirm that it is a cow?

And you're saying this in the name of the CI?

Dovid Hojda 

I wrote:
>But *whatever* type of goose it was, it was less similar to a turkey 
>than a zebu is to a cow! There is *no* type of goose that is more 
>similar to a turkey than a zebu is to a cow.

To which R' Akiva Blum responded:
> How do you know? As I said, we have no idea what this bird was! How
> can you then say that it doesn't exist and never did exist? Are we
> now intimately familiar with every domesticated bird that exists and
> ever did exist?

The answer is that all geese share some basic similarities such as webbed
feet and broad bills that are significant and are lacked by turkeys. Cows
and zebu, on the other hand, are the same animal except for hump and
some very minor other differences.

RAB further stated:
> However, if the CI 55 years ago was not ready to be mattir, did not
> find there was a reliable mesorah and did not agree that the zebu is
> certainly a cow, why would the passage of time allow him to consider
> that 55 years ago there was a reliable psak to be mattir? He was there
> and disagreed with the mattirim!!

Because that is not what happened. The Chazon Ish did NOT unequivocally
state that the zebu is forbidden due to it not being a cow. He wrote
that IF it is not the same type of animal as a cow, THEN it requires a
mesorah. See his letter in SHuT R' Yitzchak Herzog no, 22, where he notes
that Rav Herzog has not discussed whether the zebu has significant enough
differences from a cow to be considered a separate min, but IF it does,
then it rquires a mesorah. I suspect that because this letter was not
printed in the sefarim of the Chazon Ish, people mistakenly assumed that
the CI unequivocally prohibited the zebu, which is simply not the case.

I further wrote: 
>But *if* one adopts the view of the Netziv, then since in
>this case people have been eating the zebu for decades, (and there is 
>certainly a reasonable case to be made that this was because it is 
>sufficiently similar to a cow,) this provides an additional reason to 
>not prohibit it now.

To which RAB responded: 
>And I maintain that this is reasonable only if the CI didn't deal with the
>question at that time.

See above. He didn't deal with the question - just with the hypothetical
question of what to do if if turns out to be a different min.

In respondes to RA Folger, RAB wrote:
>How would one prove that it is the same species? The CI writes that
>the reason we need be careful to have a mesorah for animals is so that
>we can be familiar with the treifos of that animal and we can recognize
>an unhealthy animal. It follows that a scientific classification would
>not cover us, since there still could be significant differences in
>internal appearances.

As far as I recall, the CI doesn't write that this *is* the reason -
rather, he suggests that it *may be* a reason. Remember, this isn't the
CI's own ruling, instead he is following the strange ruling of the Shach
and trying to provide a rationale for it.

You can never PROVE that two animals are the same type from a halachic
standpoint, since there is no objective criteria in halachah for defining
"types." Hence the problem that Tosafos discusses with the tarnegolta
d'agma. However, the zebu and cow are about as similar as two types
can be, especially since, zoologically, they are the same species and
interbreed freely. From the point of view of treifos, there is unlikely
to be any difference whatsoever between the two.

Natan Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

[R Natan Slifkin:]
> Because that is not what happened. The Chazon Ish did NOT unequivocally
> state that the zebu is forbidden due to it not being a cow. He wrote
> that IF it is not the same type of animal as a cow, THEN it requires a
> mesorah. See his letter in SHuT R' Yitzchak Herzog no, 22, where he notes
> that Rav Herzog has not discussed whether the zebu has significant enough
> differences from a cow to be considered a separate min, but IF it does,
> then it rquires a mesorah.

Are the definitional aspects of min the same as those used in standard
secular biology? Where are they discussed?

KT
Joel Rich

I wrote:
> If someone is the rav in charge of all kashrus of a respectable kashrus
> organization, we can assume that he is a TC with respect to kashrus.

RYGB replied:
> This is circular reasoning - how did he become respectable in the
> first place?

If his kashrus is considered mainstream and respectable by many people,
it is unlikely that he is not a TC with respect to kashrus. The ideas
here of "muchzak b'kashrus" are issues of reputation.

I wrote:
> A yirei shamayim for these purposes is someone who knowingly would not
> be machshil anybody.

RYGB replied:
> That is not a good working definition. Conservative and Reform Rabbis
> would not knowingly be machshil Orthodox Jews either.

1.  I'm not sure whether a mechalel Shabbos has ne'emanus.
2. Perhaps they could theoretically be relied upon in terms of ne'emanus
but they are not talmidei chachamim.
3. Perhaps in some instances, where a nominally C rabbi is shomer
shabbos, is a TC, and would not knowingly be machshil someone, he could
be relied upon. I seem to recall reading a tshuva (by Rav Moshe?) about
someone relying on the kashrus of non-frum relatives who are shomer
kashrus and would not mislead him.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:33:52PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: I'm doing research for a shiur on adoption.. Anyone aware of any specific
: works comparing the pros and cons of adopting Jewish or non-Jewish babies?
: Any mpi hashmua?

[Micha:]
> I can tell you the pesaqim I've gotten over the years.
> The obvious pro of adopting a Jewish baby is that if we don't, the child
> will probably go to a non-Jewish home, which qualifies as shmad! My wife
> has a phone line that is to be used for incoming calls only for people
> looking to find homes for special needs Jewish children, or to adopt one.
> According to Rav Dovid Cohen, she is obligated to answer it on Shabbos.

So it sounds like there's a chiyuv on bet din (or the melech or the 7
tuvei hair etc.) -any sources?
Are there any organizations that actively seek out Jewish babies (I mean
from the non frum world)?
Is there any chiyuv on a couple that unfortunately can't have their own
children, to adopt? Is it an eitzah tova or could they find some other
mitzvah to spend their time on?
Why did the Lubavitcher Rebbe not adopt?

KT
Joel Rich

>On 2/26/06, saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>> The essentail point made here is well taken, but I was surprised
>> at the parethetical remark. It is well known that Edom, descendent
> > of Esav, is identified in rabbinic thought with Rome, but to connect
> > Esav's personal treatment of Yitzchak with Roman practice seems quite
> > a stretch to me. Does anyone know of an explicit rabbinic source which
> > makes this connection?

>My father, Prof. Louis H. Feldman of YU
>(http://faculty.mc.yu.edu/feldman/cv.htm)), wrote me the  following:

>In response to Saul Mashbaum's e-mail, it is true that there is no
>explicit reference that connects Esau's personal treatment of Yitzchak
>with Roman practice.

                                                 Bs"D

Hi, all! Momentarily delurking to pass on something I just came across
that relates to this thread. I haven't really been following it closely,
but maybe this will be helpful, even though it is more indirect than
direct. In Ta'anis 18a (also in Rosh HaShanna), the Gemora brings a breisa
that the Romans passed a gezeira against talmud Torah, bris mila, and
Shabbos. Chazal consulted a certain influential Roman matronisa about
what to do, and she advised them that at night, they should publicly
protest/pray. They heeded her advice, and protested/prayed, "Oh, Heavens
(to invoke the Almighty to heed what the Romans had done. They then
directly addressed the Romans - Rashi), 'Are we not brothers (Yaakov
and Esav)? Do we not have the same father (Yitzchak)? Do we not have the
same mother (Rivka)? Why, then, are we different from all other nations
that you promulgate harsh decrees against us?" [As a result,] they (the
Romans) nullified them (the decrees)." Thus, according to this Breisa,
Rome realized that they were Esav and that the Jews were Yaakov. If
so, it seems to me that its not much of a stretch to say that they were
aware of their progenitor's legacy in honoring his parents. Indeed, maybe
that's specifically why Chazal phrased their protest the way they did -
to invoke the idea that "Dad wouldn't be happy with what you're doing,
so to honor him, please stop."

On an aside, since it is a halacha that Esav hates Yaakov, I wonder
why this strategy was effective. Similarly, the Roman positive response
seems diametrically opposed to what one would think it would be based
on the Gemora in Avodah Zara says about the festival the Romans held
every seventy years. What is the explanation of Rome's ambivalence?

Eli 

On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 10:32:44PM +0200, Moshe Feldman wrote:
: Rav Mordechai Breuer has spoken about his view that midrash is not the
: rabbis' view of what happened historically (which is pshat, not midrash),
: but the rabbis' attempt to convey a moral message to their listeners.
...

Lamah li RMBreuer, rishonim hi!

We've discussed this before, and even collected a list of MMs. (That
list ought to go on www.aishdas.org/wiki, as part of an Avodah FAQ.)

However, it would seem from the lashon in the Maharsha that some medrashim
are historical, some not, and Chazal never bothered distinguishing the
two since the point is the lesson -- not history. Thus, any medrash
might be history, but we don't know which.

In a common very similar to the mabul discussion, except about
the medrash, not pasuq): The Rambam takes a minimalist approach to
supernatural claims. He therefore tells you dismiss midrashim that defy
reason or natural philosophy. (Therefore you sometimes know which are
ahistorical.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

I wonder whether one woman can make a berakha for another where both are
doing a Mitsvat aseh she-ha-zeman gramma (listening to Shofar blowing,
sitting in a sukka, shaking lulav etc.). After all the mishna at the end
of Perek Shlishi in Rosh HaShana says that anyone who is not obligated
cannot make a berakha for another. This might imply that a woman who
is not obligated can be motsi'a neither a man nor a woman. According to
this approach, there is no areivut because there is no obligation; but
the mishna is also teaching us that there is also no shomei'a ke-oneh
for the same reason.

Alternatively, one could argue that the case of two women who are both
reshut by a Mitsvat aseh she-ha-zeman gramma is equivalent to birkat
ha-nehenin. Here there is no areivut; yet, one can be motsi'a the other by
shomei'a ke-oneh if both are eating. In other words, if I can be make the
berakha for myself, I can do it for another as well via shomei'a ke-oneh
- provided the "other" is of the same or lower level of obligation. The
Mishna is only referring to an eino mehuyyav being motsi a mehuyyav. [A
man who already blew shofar, cannot make the beraka for a woman, because
there is no areivut and for him the berakha is levatala]. Libi omer li
that this second pshat is correct. The analogy to birkat ha-nehenin
is convincing.

I have looked through poskim and found no explicit discussion of Berakhot
per se'. See however Halikhot Beita (R. David Auerbach) Chap. 9, sec. 6
and note 13, and Mikraei Kodesh (R. Tsvi Pesach Frank) on Yamim Nora'im
sec 25, note 2 in Harerei Kodesh (R. Yosef Kohen). Both R. Auerbach
and Rav Kohen maintain that a woman can blow shofar for another woman
because they are the same level of Hiyyuv [none!]. Rav Kohen wants to
bring proof from a Katan who ate kedei svia who can be motsi a gadol who
ate less, where both are Had derabbanan. But that's no proof le-aniyut
da'ati because there is still Hiyyuv, and is covered by the Mishna in
Rosh HaShana. But by women, it is totally reshut!

I have heard that in some communities on Rosh HaShana, where there is
a special tekiat shofar for women, one woman makes the berakhot for
all - like the second interpretation of the Mishna. On the other hand,
in some other communities the women are instucted to recite the brakha
by themselves.

I wonder whether you could clarify for me the correct peshat of the Mishna
and it ramifications halakha le-ma'aseh: can one woman make a berakha
for another where both are doing a Mitsvat aseh she-ha-zeman gramma .
Mekorot, teshuvot, peskim etc. on point would be greatly appreciated

        Much thanks in advance
                Aryeh

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor
   of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University

I posted about this years ago, but as we have many additional people
here, I'll try again.

Keyedu'a, 'no Shem Hashem appears in the Megillas Esther. However there
are many of them 'merumaz' in Roshei and Sofei Teivos.

The Emden Siddur [just before the Megilla] writes: "Yechaven beSheimos
haremuzim beroshe vesofei teivos - al pi Kisvei Ho'Ari". he goes on to
list them.

[BTW experts say that this note - and many others in the siddur - are
not from the Yaavetz - but a later editor.]

Similarly the Komarno Chumash "Heichal Habrocho" lists these as part of
an essay [in Vol. Shemos - at the back - just prior to ME] in the name
of Reb Shabsi Sofer, who I undertstand was a talmid of the Baal Shem.

I have been told that the Munkatcher Rav - the Minchas Elozor owned a
Megilla where all these 'hidden' Sheimos were written in a larger size
than the rest of the Megilla - making these Sheimos noticeable - thus
helping to be mechaven during the kerieh.

Some years ago, we were visiting Tasmania. The capital city Hobart has
the oldest shul in Australia. In that shul i saw a very old Megilla and
found that it too has all these Sheimos emphasised - by having an enlarged
'font' size. I took a couple of pictures, which I can scan and send to
anyone interested.

Does anyone in today's audience have anything further to comment on this?
Has anyone else ever seen such a Megilla? [Or am I a 'chad bedoro'??]

SBA
sba@sba2.com

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


[ 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         ]