Avodah Mailing List

Volume 21: Number 12

Fri, 24 Nov 2006

• 1. Re: Ma'aseh eretz Mitzrayim (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Throwing a Drop (Akiva Blum)
• 3. Re: Prophets are infallible? (Zvi Lampel)
• 4. Re: establishing mamzerut (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Ma'aseh eretz Mitzrayim (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Astounding Meshech Chochma, Parev Meat? (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: establishing mamzerut (Zev Sero)
• 8. Noach's Mazal Tov (Zvi Lampel)
• 9. Parev Meat (Cantor Wolberg)
• 10. Re: Copyright and e-daf (Jacob Farkas)

 
 
RMB writes:
>>How is this defined? Rashi speaks of people marrying each other,  but
how does one define marriage without invoking the concepts of  eirusin
and niru'in? Are we talking about common law, just living  together
monogamously?

What's the ma'aseh aveirah of KMEM aside from  that of actual MZ or
nashim hamesolelot?<<


.
>>>>>
My husband, R' Michael Katz, did a lot of research into this when he used  to 
teach Noahide classes.  Goyim are not allowed to commit adultery, but  what 
constitutes marriage for them?  Roughly, there are two opinions:   one is that 
if they live together as man and wife they are married, and the  other is that 
if they make any kind of public declaration (like a church wedding  or 
getting married before a justice of the peace) then they are married.  A  subset of 
the first opinion is that if they just sleep together once they are  married.
 
The next question is, how do they get divorced?  Again there are  different 
opinions.  One opinion is that indeed goyim cannot get divorced,  once married 
is forever married.  You might call this the Catholic opinion.  :- )  The 
other opinion is that if they publicly separate and live in  different houses and 
declare that they are divorced, then they are  divorced.  (The Protestant 
option.)  A subset of this is that  they can get divorced by just saying, "I 
divorce you."  (The Moslem  option.)
 
In the specific case of Mitzrayim -- changing the subject a bit -- I  think 
from what happened with Avraham and Sarah we can deduce  that Egyptians would 
not sleep with a married woman, but WOULD kill her  husband in order to make 
her "not a married woman." That kind of "morality" is  not, needless to say, 
Torah morality.




--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061122/23d93b39/attachment.html

The gemorah Yoma 58b says that the cohen who sprinkles the blood of par cohen moshiach and of par ho'edo stands on the eastern side of the mizbeach hazohov, which is situated slighly west of centre of the heichal. This means the cohen stood at about 20 amos away from the peroches.
The gemorah 57a states according to R' Elozor ben R' Yossi, the blood of par heelem dovor shel tzibbur should touch the peroches as he whitnessed it in Rome. This means that he would successfully throw drops of blood 20 amos!

Why is this not listed as one of the avodos koshos shebamikdash?

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006?R' Daniel Eidensohn  wrote:

R' Zvi Lampel wrote: 
> Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn Fri, 03 Nov 2006, wrote: 
> 
> "Sefer Haikarrim 3:17 says that prophets other than Moshe are fallible 
> i.e. they can misunderstand what they are seeing. 
> 
> New ZL: 
> But he also says in what sense the prophets misunderstood., and the sense is 
as 
> I stated. Again: They sometimes saw things that were false in their literal 
> sense, and in this sense "misunderstood," but were also perfectly aware that 
> what they saw was meant in a non-literal sense. What they lamented was the 
fact 
> that unlike Moshe Rabbeynu, they were not on the level to be priveleged to 
> perceive the prophecy in a non-metaphorical representation. This is clear 
from 
> the words of the Sefer HaIkarrim: 
> 
> "Yeshaya said ... ?Oy li that my eyes saw the King Hashem Tsevakos and /I 
know/ that this is the work of the imaginative faculty, because it is without 
> question impossible to attribute any form to Him, Yisborach.?" The Sefer 
> Ikarrim is therefore clear that the prophet is /aware/ that the "literal" 
image is false, and that the real message is solely in the nimshal to which 
that 
> imagery alludes (as RDE himself wrote: "He [Yeshaya] himself said that his 
> perception of Gd was in fact a mistake because of the involvement of his 
> imagination"). The Sefer Ikarrim clearly holds that the imagery the prophet 
> perceives is true in its message, although untrue in its "literal" sense.* 
> 
> 
RDE:
IMHO your understanding of Sefer HaIkkarim is inaccurate.. In the 
section immediately before that which you cited above is: 

"We know that the words of Moshe are true according to their literal 
meaning without any question. In contrast the words of Yeshaya - who is 
on a lower level then Moshe - are not correct. Therefore because of his 
lower level Yeshaya said, "I saw G-d." YESHAYA THOUGHT THAT HE WAS 
SEEING G-D - but it wasn't so. This image was the result of his 
imaginative faculty. .... But Yeshaya [in contrast to Moshe] utilized 
the imaginative faculty in his prophecy - that which is called by our 
Sages as "aspaklaria she'eino me'ira". He was brought to error and to 
imagine that he had actually seen Gd. 

He is clearly saying that Yeshaya mistakenly thought - when he saw the 
vision - that it was literally true. It was only later that he realized 
it was a mistake. 

ZL:
I guess you missed the following paragraph:

Or perhaps you take it that the prophet only realizes the impossibility of the 
literal meaning of his vision after he awakens from it? Maybe; but sof kall 
sof, he's not deceived once he awakens, and certainly not while he is relating 
his vision to the people.

So I already expressed my acceptance of your understanding of this p'rat as a 
possibility.

Kol tuv

Zvi Lampel





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061122/0f2e6b77/attachment-0001.htm

 
 
Arie Folger writes:
>>However, given that he agrees that DNA is  almost 
failsafe (he basically admits to 99%+ accuracy), IVF isn't any less  likely 
than the presumed error rate.

Plus, the possibility of IUF/IVF  is sufficient to let the woman claim that 
the 
child is no mamzer.  Furthermore, if the woman can thus claim, so can we 
claim 
for her  (essentially applying the reasoning of nishtaheh  hazera').<<

.
>>>>>
1.  Does everyone agree that if the sperm came from a donor but not  through 
intercourse then the baby is not a mamzer?  Certainly I would never  have 
taken a chance of casting doubt on my children's yichus that way.  If  the woman's 
husband is a kohen but the donor sperm comes from a non-kohen (or a  non-Jew) 
-- what is the status of the child?  Non-mamzer and a kohen?   Non-mamzer but 
non-kohen either?  Challal?
 

2.  You keep talking about IVF as a way of having the baby be a  non-mamzer, 
i.e., one way the baby would have DNA from a man to whom his mother  was not 
married.  But there is a simpler way, which is has been around a  lot longer 
and is still much more commonly used, when the woman is fertile and  her husband 
is not, and that is artificial insemination with donor sperm.   AI with DS, 
like IVF using DS, at best raises doubts about the yichus of  the child so 
conceived and I just can't see frum people using donor sperm in  either of these 
scenarios.  Again I ask the same question as above: does  everyone agree that 
the baby is not a mamzer if the sperm was obtained in a  doctor's office and 
not through intercourse?  And what is the yichus of the  baby thus produced if 
his mother's husband (social father) is a  kohen?
 
3.  A third question suggests itself.  What is the yichus  status of an IVF 
baby whose mother and father ARE married to each other (husband  sperm, no 
third-party donor sperm) -- since by definition an IVF baby is not the  result of 
normal intercourse?  If you say that a DNA-donor does  not make the baby a 
mamzer, does that mean that there is no relation between the  DNA-donor and the 
baby even when the donor and the mother /are/  married?



--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061122/bbedc05a/attachment-0001.html

T613K@aol.com wrote:

> My husband, R' Michael Katz, did a lot of research into this when he 
> used to teach Noahide classes.  Goyim are not allowed to commit 
> adultery, but what constitutes marriage for them?  Roughly, there are 
> two opinions:  one is that if they live together as man and wife they 
> are married, and the other is that if they make any kind of public 
> declaration (like a church wedding or getting married before a justice 
> of the peace) then they are married.  A subset of the first opinion is 
> that if they just sleep together once they are married.

I don't think this is tenable, because it would seem to eliminate
the position of kedesha.  The pasuk says "lo tihyeh kedesha bivnot
yisrael", which implies that there is no such prohibition for BN.
And Yehudah seems to have had no more than mild embarrassment at
admitting to having been with one, so long as that admission was
limited to his partner, and to discreet enquiries of people in the
immediate vicinity.  It was only when it seemed that more extensive
enquiries would be necessary, making it a matter of public gossip,
that he felt too embarrassed to continue.

Even according to the first opinion, that no public ceremony is
necessary, it seems to me that they would have to make themselves
publicly known as a married couple, and not simply as lovers.
Otherwise you've eliminated the position of pilegesh, which it is
clear from many pesukim existed among BN.

It seems to me that each society defines for itself its own marriage
customs, but most societies have *some* such set of customs, and a
definite idea of who is married and who isn't, and attach importance
to that distinction.  And that the laws of adultery and Maaseh Eretz
Mitzrayim adapt themselves to the local definition of marriage.  And
that in the rare society which has no such institution (e.g. the
Scandinavian Gypsies), those dinim have no application.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 
 
From: "Rabbi Meir" _rabbimeir@optusnet.com.au_ 
(mailto:rabbimeir@optusnet.com.au) :


>>Has  anyone noticed the Meshech Chochma [opening P VaYera] discussing the
angels  eating bassar BeChaLav under AA supervision?

He appears to consider that  meat of a Ben Pekuah is not flieshig....<<


.
>>>>>
I'm not sure why the Meshech Chochma needs to say this.  Somebody  (Rashi?) 
says there that A'A gave the malachim butter (with matza, I guess)  right away 
-- something to eat while the meat was being prepared -- and only  gave them 
the meat afterwards.
 

In addition, Rashi says they only pretended to eat (he even learns a  
midos-message from this, "when in Rome....") so I don't even know what it means  to 
say that malachim only eat kosher food.  Does that mean that when they  pretend 
to eat they will only pretend to eat if the food is kosher?   Couldn't they 
just pretend it's kosher?  (Please excuse feeble attempt at  humor.)  




--Toby  Katz
=============

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061122/8206b1cb/attachment-0001.htm

T613K@aol.com wrote:

> 1.  Does everyone agree that if the sperm came from a donor but not 
> through intercourse then the baby is not a mamzer? 

No. RAF's post followed the shita of RMF, but the SR held that the
child is a mamzer.  This dispute was the cause of Satmar's big
machlokes against RMF.


>  If the woman's husband is a kohen but the donor sperm comes from a 
> non-kohen (or a non-Jew) -- what is the status of the child?  Non-mamzer 
> and a kohen?  Non-mamzer but non-kohen either?  Challal?

AIUI, none of the above.  Not a mamzer, not a kohen, and not a chalal.


> 3.  A third question suggests itself.  What is the yichus status of an 
> IVF baby whose mother and father ARE married to each other (husband 
> sperm, no third-party donor sperm) -- since by definition an IVF baby is 
> not the result of normal intercourse?  If you say that a DNA-donor does 
> not make the baby a mamzer, does that mean that there is no relation 
> between the DNA-donor and the baby even when the donor and the 
> mother /are/ married?

No, RMF's shita is not that there is no relation between the sperm
donor and the child.  He holds that they are related, but that a
mamzer is only produced by an act of avera, and since with AI there
is no avera the child produced is kosher.  A more interesting
question is what he would hold if the donor is a kohen.  Can a child
born to the wife of a yisrael be a kosher kohen?  (It's been many
years since I read the relevant teshuva, so I don't remember whether
RMF addresses this question.)

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

A guest we had for Shabbos amazed me with the following observation regarding Noach.

(For lack of time, I?m leaving out some relevant sources; but the facts are familiar to us all, I?m sure.)

We know Noach was 600 years old when he finished the work on the Ark and the Flood began (Breishis 7:6). We know he was told to build it 120 years earlier. Calculation: Noach was therefore commanded to build the Ark, plus  take his wife and married children into it, when he was (600-120=) 480 years old.

But he first had his children 20 years later, when he was 500 years old (Breishis 5:32)!*

Amazing conclusion: When Hashem told Noach that the rest of the world?s population will be destroyed by the Flood, He was in fact also informing the childness Noach that he would eventually father children (who would have wives!) at an advanced (even for his times) age!

Problem: Torah and Chazal do not seem to make a point of this (as opposed to, say, with Avraham Avinu). If they do, where? If they don't, why not? 

* Incidentally, since "Noach begat Shem, Cham and Yafess" when he was 500 years old, does that mean they were triplets? Or does it mean he then started to have sons at 500 years old, but two of them were really born when Noach was older? I don?t think it could mean that at 500 is when he finished begetting the three--Chazal point out that Hashem, knowing that Shem Cham and Yafess themselves would not be worthy enough to be saved from the Flood on their own account, kept Noach from having children earlier, so that they would be young enough at the Flood to be saved on his account. (And it would be difficult to say that the "500-year" figure is a rounded figure, and Noach really had the sons before his 480th year, because a number of the ages the Torah gives at which children were born are not approximations. Among them are 105, 187, and 182.)

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061123/8f0fdc0a/attachment.html

Regarding Pareve Meat, who knows, they may have known about soy substitutes. 
Who ever would have thought you could purchase imitation bacon, made from vegetable products, OR go to Farm Food and have vegetarian chopped liver that would taste just like meat?  The angels were certainly ahead of our time.  Likewise, if your great grandfather came back, and saw you eating butter with a real meat, there is no way you could convince him that it was pareve.  

It is brought down regarding dan l'chaf z'chus, that if you see someone drinking milk with a meat meal, you are to assume it is coconut milk, and then it says that if you drink coconut milk with a meat meal, you must leave the coconut shells on the table, so there is no violation of ma'aris ayin. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061123/95e18f0f/attachment.htm

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> : Copyright is not property, it's a monopoly granted to authors by the
> : will of Congress....
> 

R' Micha berger responded:
> This presumes the conclusion. I again invite you to see my earlier posts
> of notes of a shiur by R Zev Reichman (given at the peak of the Napster
> controversy) at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml> and
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml#13>.
> 
> There is a very old cheirem based on the applicability of hasagas
> gevul.
> 
> We also need to address dinah dmalchusah and hezeq.

Copyright in the US is the recognition of ownership of Intellectual 
Property inasmuch as those who infringe upon said copyright by using the 
IP product outside of the realm of "fair use" are subject to the 
jurisdiction of civil court in the administration of fines or other 
procedures.

This "ownership" is subject to sale or transfer, not unlike any other 
item or entity.

Whether the law is truly just or whether fair use is too narrowly 
defined is outside the realm of the current status, that copyrights are 
an existing entity, its breach is dealt with in civil courts, like any 
other entity. Does/should Halakhah ignore that such an entity exists?

I'm not sure I understand how the rules of Hezeq apply, though, in an 
absence of Dina DeMalkhusa. Should there be no consensus that IP is an 
entity, that would force Halakhah to establish one first to apply the 
rules of Hezeq for anyone who diminishes the value of this (Halakhic) 
entity. Seeing how the Aharonim opted to enforce copyright bans via 
Hasagas Gevul it appears that creation of such an entity, by way of 
Halakhah is problematic. Hasagas Gevul is a better model, as it 
interferes with the rights of an individual who has established a model 
for his Parnassah.

However, being that the laws have created such an entity, being that 
this entity is not in direct conflict with stated Halakhic policies, it 
is difficult to argue that Dina DeMalkhusa should not apply universally.

Rashbam [Bava Basra 54b dh V'ha'amar Shmuel] says that Dina DeMalkhusa 
is self-obligated by citizens who choose to live in that country, and 
thus becomes full fledged Din. Copyright enforcement would certainly 
apply in his model.

Even Rabbeinu Yonah [BB 54b] who limits Dina DeMalkhusa to a scenario 
that is not unlike Hefqer Beis Din Hefqer would presumably apply the 
same logic to an entity that the government establishes.

--Jacob



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 4, Issue 12
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."