Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 119

Mon, 21 May 2007

• 1. Re: shelo osani (Simon Montagu)
• 2. Sovar VeKibbel (Meir Rabi)
• 3. Re: SoVar VeKibbel (Dr. Josh Backon)
• 4. Shmittah (Michael Elzufon)
• 5. Re: otzar bet din (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: SoVar VeKibbel (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: shelo osani (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Zeikher-Tekher (was: Z"L in English) (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: Z"L in English (Minden)
• 10. Ascending to the Har Habayit (Yisrael Medad)
• 11. Going up to Har HaBayis (Michael Elzufon)
• 12. Re: kashrus of milk (Dr. Josh Backon)
• 13. Re: kashrus of milk (Rich, Joel)

On 5/20/07, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> (If anyone can find an example of an abbreviation which appears in a
> zemer or piyut, where the number of syllables is significant, that
> would be machria towards that pronunciation.)
>

'Bar Yohhai, Yud hhochma keduma
Hishkafta lichvodo penima
La"v netivot, reshit hateruma
At keruv mimshahh ziv orecha'

I've sometimes seen the third line of that verse printed as 'Sheloshim
ushtaim netivot', but it's almost impossible to sing it that way, at least
to the melody we use at home. I tell my children: to sing that line, all you
need is 'La"v'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070521/5547dbbc/attachment.html 

 

 

 

I was inclined to think that sovar vekibbel means that we have altered the
threshold that divides Shogeg from Oness. It means that the circumstances
that we usually utilise to determine Shogeg or Oness are not applied here.
The assumption is that these actions can not be construed by BD as they
would usually, because they agreed to enter an unusual arena.

But, if we should show that at the jousting tournament the intent was not to
knock his opponent but to kill him, there would be full compensation to pay.
We are not entertaining the prospect of boxing matches where the express
purpose is to injure the opponent. This is Assur beyond doubt. No amount of
agreement between the sparring partners can permit one to raise a hand in
order to injure another. But those who engage in wrestling matches where the
risks are greater but the intent is not to injure, sovar vekibbel would
raise the bar of Oness.

Now, if this is true, then determining shogeg or mezid which is the question
of Sanhedrin 77b, should also be altered. The burden of proof to prove
intent should be much greater.

 

 

Savar vekibbel is a legitimate consideration in dinei mamonot, where the
plaintiff is seeking financial compensation for his injury; if he willingly
accepted the risk, then he consented to the injury and is not entitled to be
paid for it.  The same would presumably apply if he was killed and his
estate sued for financial compensation for his death.  But in the second
case we are not dealing with dinei mamonot; nobody is asking for financial
compensation.  Instead we're dealing with the crime of manslaughter, and for
that purpose the victim's assumption of risk is irrelevant: even if a person
explicitly consents to be killed, that does not excuse the killer from
criminal culpability.

 

 

> I believe Rabbenu Tam suggests that those chaps who engage in jousting 

> matches as a form of entertaining the groom and bride, are not able to 

> claim financial compensation for damages suffered in those duels, 

> since they have understood the dangers and agreed to them. SoVar VeKibbel.

> 

> Is this not an argument that should equally apply to the game of 

> throwing a stone against a wall where the players try to catch and 

> throw the stone back or something like that? See Rashi Sanhedrin 77b. 

> However in this case, if someone gets killed, there may be a Golus 

> sentence imposed or possibly it may be more than a Shogeg in which 

> case Golus will not grant immunity and he must employ his own protection.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070521/592e5a26/attachment-0001.htm 

>I believe Rabbenu Tam suggests that those chaps who engage in jousting
>matches as a form of entertaining the groom and bride, are not able to claim
>financial compensation for damages suffered in those duels, since they have
>understood the dangers and agreed to them. SoVar VeKibbel.

Though the Mechaber (Choshen Mishpat 420:1)  indicates "assur l'adam l'hakot
chaveiro" the Rambam (Chovel u'Mazik 5:1) qualifies this as "derech nitzayon".

KT

Josh

RRK: ...whatever is planted before shmitta doesn't have a problem of
s'fichim.

oops - I guess my recollections of the end and aftermath of shmitta are
clearer than my memory of the beginning of shmitta before issur s'fichin
becomes relevant. So, l'maaseh, are there OBD vegetables available at the
beginning of shmitta, and later OBD becomes just fruits? Or am I putting my
foot in my mouth again?

[MJE] No, OBD never applies to s'fichin.  Vegetables planted in the sixth year that are not harvested until the shvi'ith begins have kedushath shvi'ith and, depending on how they are handled, could have the status of shamur v'ne'evad.  (Fruits that began to form on the tree in the sixth year do not have kedushath shvi'ith at all.)  The s'fichin problem begins with vegetables that are planted or grow by themselves during shmittah.  Rabbanan made a gezerah on them because people would actually plant vegetables and claim that they had grown by themselves.  OBD is not a way out of this.  OBD only applies to fruits that form during shvi'ith; they have kedushath shvi'ith.

R'n IS wrote:
> Also - I see how beit din solves the problem that the produce needs to be
> hefker and available to all. How does it solve the problem of s'fichin,
> which are assur because there is a concern that people might have planted
> them deliberately?

Reb Michael Elzuufon also asked, remarking that CI's OB is a major 'hiddush, 
what exactly the difference is between the MIshnah's OB and the CI's.

I am no expert, and only now beginning to delve into some of the more 
difficult issues in hilkhot shevi'it. It can keep one learning for years, 
BE"H.

AIUI, CI held that because Shemittah in our times is only rabbinic, therefore, 
the prohibition of sefi'him, which is equally rabbinic, doesn't apply 
nowadays. His OB therefore allows "selling" sefi'him.

In general, Rav Kook seems to have been stricter in worrying that shemittah 
nowadays is biblical, and hence needed to circumvent shemittah in order for 
the early yishuv to survive. One prominent Shemittah activist (CI's shittah) 
explained to me that in Rav Kook's days this was a real problem, as even if 
they could have found ways to survive without working the fields (debatable, 
as it isn't clear whetehr vetziviti et birkhati applies even when Shemittah 
is rabbinic. Rav Kook could have been 'hosheish for both sides), there was 
another danger: felahin and other Arabs were simply stealing land that lay 
fallow. The whole enterprise of buying land in Israel would have suffered a 
tremendous and dangerous setback during shemittah.

Hence, Rav Kook looked for a circumvention device. It helped, of course, that 
Rav Kook was of the opinion that a non-Jew can be mafqi'ah qedushat haaratz 
by buying the land, again a point that is open to debate.

CI was active a few years later, the situation had improved. especially after 
1948, and he felt that (a) it was important to keep shemittah, and (b) 
shemittah is rabbinic nowadays. Hence, CI had certain kullot that Rav Kook 
wouldn't accept. CI felt very strongly about the need to find every qulah in 
the book in order to make it likely that people will increasingly observe 
shemittah. It goes withou saying that a qulah like heter mekhirah wasn't 
applicable, as that qulah's point is to circumvent, rather than ease the 
observance of shemitah.

I am not familiar with the 'Edah's position, but it wouldn't surprise me that 
they hold by the stringencies of both the CI and Rav Kook, while they 
disagree with the political calculations of both CI and RK.

The above is NOT based on any original research, but rather on a shiur I heard 
from the abeve mentioned, anonymous shemittah activist who, by the way, 
founded a kolel for the study of mitzvot hateluyot baaretz.

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Reb Meir Rabi wrote:
> Is this not an argument that should equally apply to the game of throwing a
> stone against a wall where the players try to catch and throw the stone
> back or something like that? See Rashi Sanhedrin 77b. However in this case,
> if someone gets killed, there may be a Golus sentence imposed or possibly
> it may be more than a Shogeg in which case Golus will not grant immunity
> and he must employ his own protection.

Just a hunch: compensation is bein adam le'havero, while galut is bein adam 
laMaqom.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Monday, 21. May 2007 02:17:38 avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> In reference to R' Micha Berger's post that:
> > BTW, the MB reads "shelo asani aku"m
>
> I had written:
> > Can anyone else think of a similar example? I have vague
> > recollections of abbreviations in tefilos, but a *bracha*
> > is another matter entirely.

RAM then wrote
> Here are some examples for comparison:
<SNIP>

Eh, are these examples so relevant, none of them are berakhot, all of them are 
late compositions.


-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RMB wrote:
> The whole think about repeating a pasuq of parashas Zachor arises from
> this issue. The Gra made a distinction between "zecher" and "zeicher",
> that one is a memory, and the other a memorial, a reminder, or a
> mention. Since the parashah begins "zechor" and ends "al tishqach",
> the duty must be to obliterate all mention (verbal and physical) of
> Amaleiq, not all memory. His talmidim were mesupaqim which means
> which, leaving them debating as to which the Gaon was maqpid on
> saying.

Eh, I have seen this posted repeatedly. For the record, I'd like to mention 
that this is debatable. Rav 'Haim Volozhiner disputed that the Gra said 
Zekher. He does so in the introduction to the sefer that made the original 
claim that the Gra said Zekher (w. segol). It is only subsequently that some, 
such as the MB, suggested to follow both.

Again, for the record, during about 14 years we changed our minhag from saying 
only zekher to doing both. BH, with the support of my illustrious and great 
predecessor - the highly praised TC, world renowned specialist in all 
halakhic issues regarding animals, shlit"a - who had regretted introducing 
this reform, I turned the clock back and we now say teikher only. Prior to 
ruling on this matter I did some research and could find no serious support 
for zekher. (I don't mean to imply that the MB isn't a serious work, CV, it 
obviously is, but in this matter, his pessaq/suggestion was based on lack of 
information)

The one grammarian/massoretic specialist I spoke to, Rav Breuer, was obviously 
100% against this reform, and his article on the matter is available here: 
http://www.herzog.ac.il/index.php?option=com_content&;task=view&id=739&Itemid=657

Just scroll down to the second part (beit)

Interestingly, those whom I consulted who were against the change admitted not 
having a clue about the matter. As one posseq told me: "I am not a 
grammarian."

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

(As I didn't follow the thread thoroughly enough, I apologise for a possible lack of novelty.)

I tend to explain or translate za"l by "may his/her memory be a blessing" or usually for short: "of blissful memory", not "bless'd" or "bless?d". Of course, if you insist, even this is already one step further than the Hebrew, turning the concrete "mention" to a more abstract "memory".


ELPhM

Dov Bloom's post Vol. 23, Issue 118, #14, was an excellent summary and much
could be added as he himself notes.

Two comments, though: Rav Goren did not publish a "kuntres" but a
full-fledged book, maybe 300 pages or more if my memory serves me right.  My
copy is at home and is signed by him when we were davening Mincha of Tisha
B'Av in his small synagogue that technically is within Har Habayit although
one floor above in the Machkema building (he wrote : "I sign my book on Har
Habayit on Har Habayit...").

The other: I just purchased Rav Zalman Koren's new book, 240 pages, album
[or even coffee-table] style (35 cm. x 24 cm) with maps, superimpositions,
photographs, ancient documents, computer-generated graphics - the works.
It's called V'Asu Li Mikdash published by Keren L'Morehset HoKotel.  It is
an unbelievable work of art, not to mention the wealth of material.  It is
not technically a Halachic book (especially as it is imprimatured by Rav
Aamar and Rav Rabinowitz) but it is a tremendous aid to understanding
everything about the Mikdash and Har HaBayit.

-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070521/38f2c4d0/attachment-0001.html 

From: Dov Bloom <dovb@netvision.net.il>
Subject: [Avodah] Going up to Har HaBayis

The mishna in Midot says that the "halachic" har habayit is ' ta"k ama al ta"k amah '  500x500 amot, or less tan 200 by 200 yards (i'm not being exact and there are plenty of machlokot about the exact length of an amah).  
[MJE] What amah are you using?  Even one of 18 inches, which is smaller than any shita of which I am aware, would get you 250 yards by 250 yards.
. 

Har habayit is considered machane leviah, and forbidden to a zav, zava, nidah, yoledet and baal keri. That is why those who ascend to har habayit all go to the mikve immediately before, 
[MJE] Is there no need to wait for sunset?

>Actually, AFAIK the Cholov Yisroel farms check out the cows to
>ensure that they are not treif.
>This probably cannot be and is not done in the CA/S farms.

[Bounced from AREIVIM at the request of the moderators]


Let's not forget that milk you drink is pooled from many many sources 
(different
farms, different herds). And there's also a safek whether the "treif" milk is
actually treif [no documentation that the cow underwent any surgical
intervention] . The svara goes like this:


Even though the SHACH in Yoreh Deah Hilchot Sfeik Sfeika s"k 17-18
rules that a gezeira is similar to a d'oraita prohibition and thus
one isn't *meykil*  on this type of rabbinic prohibition if
there is a doubt, in Yoreh Deah 118 s"k 8, he indicates that a mixture
of kosher milk and non-kosher milk is in the category of *min b'mino".
Since m'Doraita  *min b'mino* is *batel b'rov* this type of
mixture would only be d'rabbanan. The Beit Meir rules like
the Shach. The Noda B'Yehuda (Orach Chaim 66) also indicates
that non-kosher milk is d'rabbanan.

The problem ? According to R. Akiva Eiger the mixture is
*min she'b'eino mino* and thus requires *bitul b'shishim*.

So there are basically two factors to consider: is non-kosher milk a
gezeira similar to a Toraitic prohibition, and is the mixture min b'mino
or min b'she'eino mino. And what possible proportion of non-kosher milk,
if any, was mixed into kosher milk.


So factoring in the above and seeing how huge 20,000 gallon vats of milk
are processed, even if some real treif milk entered the supply chain, it
probably wouldn't affect the kashrut status of the milk.

So go enjoy your Shavuot blueberry cheesecake and ess gezuntere
heit!

Chag Kasher v'Sameach

Josh [who being on a diet treats cheesecake like neirot
       Chanuka: ELA LIROTAM BILVAD ! :-) ]

>Actually, AFAIK the Cholov Yisroel farms check out the cows to ensure 
>that they are not treif.
>This probably cannot be and is not done in the CA/S farms.




Let's not forget that milk you drink is pooled from many many sources
(different farms, different herds). And there's also a safek whether the
"treif" milk is actually treif [no documentation that the cow underwent
any surgical intervention] . The svara goes like this:<SNIP>
So there are basically two factors to consider: is non-kosher milk a
gezeira similar to a Toraitic prohibition, and is the mixture min b'mino
or min b'she'eino mino. And what possible proportion of non-kosher milk,
if any, was mixed into kosher milk.


So factoring in the above and seeing how huge 20,000 gallon vats of milk
are processed, even if some real treif milk entered the supply chain, it
probably wouldn't affect the kashrut status of the milk.

Josh 
========================================================================
====
Firstly there are a lot of treif cows on chalav yisrael farms - just
that we don't check to see if they are in that category presumably based
on rov and kashe lvarrer. However if the statistical % is greater than
2% and we hold 1/60, it's not at all clear why we are allowed to drink
the milk unless we hold it to be a separate category of some kind or
that since we don't "know" that any are treif, we don't worry (however
this would not reconcile with that we check lungs of animals we
slaughter).
Chag Sameach
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 119
***************************************

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..."