Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 11

Mon, 07 Jan 2008

• 1. Parshat hamelech (Rich, Joel)
• 2. brisk/rshkop difference (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 3. Re: brisk/rshkop difference (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: brisk/rshkop difference (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 9. Re: Kashrut of Cloning (T613K@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur (T613K@aol.com)
• 11. Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur (Chana Luntz)

I was struck by (Rashi's explanation of) Rav's statement (Sanhedrin 20b)
that parshat hamelech was to scare the people but that the king did not
really have the power to do these things.  It's hard to understand how
Shmuel Hanavi could have said these things to the people if they weren't
in the king's power. Has anyone heard anything on this (e.g. why this
qualifies for mshaneh mpnei hashalom)

KT
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/b8ecbbe9/attachment-0001.html 

http://tinyurl.com/2abbhg on the nature of mitzva derabannan

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or 
disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently 
delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or 
saving them.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/45adab2d/attachment-0001.htm 

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:08:01am -0800, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:
: http://tinyurl.com/2abbhg on the nature of mitzva derabannan

(Link to a Divrei Chaim blog entry, by former Avodah regular, RCBrown.)

I recently refered to a blog entry of mine on the subject of whether
mitzvos derabanan make a chalos
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/safeiq-derabbanan.shtml>.

Speaking as someone who is such a RSShkop partisan that I consciously
avoided YU's more popular Brisker track in favor of Rav Shimon's talmid,
R' Dovid Lifshitz...

Brisker derekh keeps halakhah and philosophy separate. Kavanah is best
served by not keeping them separate. How much meaning does knowing it's a
chiyuv cheftzah add to my performance of a mitzvah? When learning Brisker
derekh, it is more difficult to answer the question "Does this makes me
a better Jew"?

I would go so far as to say that there is a common cause between the
rise of Brisker derekh to prominence and the shift from all the Isms
of pre-War Yahadus to the blander, more mitzvos anashim meilumadah,
observance of much of contemporary Orthodoxy.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
micha@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:08:01am -0800, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:
: http://tinyurl.com/2abbhg on the nature of mitzva derabannan

(Link to a Divrei Chaim blog entry, by former Avodah regular, RCBrown.)

I recently refered to a blog entry of mine on the subject of whether
mitzvos derabanan make a chalos
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/safeiq-derabbanan.shtml>.

Speaking as someone who is such a RSShkop partisan that I consciously
avoided YU's more popular Brisker track in favor of Rav Shimon's talmid,
R' Dovid Lifshitz...

Brisker derekh keeps halakhah and philosophy separate. Kavanah is best
served by not keeping them separate. How much meaning does knowing it's a
chiyuv cheftzah add to my performance of a mitzvah? When learning Brisker
derekh, it is more difficult to answer the question "Does this makes me
a better Jew"?

I would go so far as to say that there is a common cause between the
rise of Brisker derekh to prominence and the shift from all the Isms
of pre-War Yahadus to the blander, more mitzvos anashim meilumadah,
observance of much of contemporary Orthodoxy.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
micha@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

RDE wrote:
> We are to love them
> once they convert. Where does it say we should encourage or facilitate
> the conversion of non-Jews?

I once heard R Asher Weis in Ramot saying during his shiur that vaahavtem et 
hager begins once there is a non-Jew who seriously wants 'ol Torah.

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

R' Mikha'el Makovi:
> Everyone agrees that we try to dissuade would-be gerim. No question.

Not anymore. There are those who hold that today one should encourage
spouses of Jews to be M'gayeir, even when they have not expressed interest
themselves.

> Everyone agrees that once a would-be ger is accepted by the beit din,
> there IS a chiyuv to be m'kabel. No question.

I don't know what this means - what Halachic status does "acceptance by BD"
have? He is still a non-Jew, and we have not yet seen any clear sources that
there is a Chiyuv to be Mekabel him. If you mean that he was already
Megayeir, that's a different story, although I refer you to the Rambam that
when Hedyotos were M'gayeir people in Dovid's and Shlomo's time, BD waited
to see if their further actions proved them sincere.

<SNIP>
> See my earlier post regarding Rabbi Henkin, where he is ambiguous
> whether the chiyuv is only to receive them once they are accepted by
> the beit din, or whether also there is a chiyuv for the beit din to
> accept them when they show themselves to be sincere but haven't yet
> been accepted.

Is a scan available of this Teshuvah?

KT,
MYG

 
 
: There is no chiyuv to accept gerim because there is no obligation for a  
goy  
: to become a ger.  He can get olam haba by keeping the  Sheva  Mitzvos. 
[--TK]

RMB wrote:
>>And yet: Ratzah HQBH leZAKOS es Yisrael, lefikhakh hirba lahem  Tora
umitzvos.....

....Having mitzvos, for someone committed to  mitzvos, is a plus -- and thus
bringing people to that state is doing them a  favor.<<





>>>>>
All well and good.  It's better to be a Jew than not, and it is an  elevation 
for a goy to convert.  We nevertheless have no obligation to go  out there 
and missionize and try to be mekarev non-Jews to convert.  And we  have no 
/obligation/ to accept gerim.  If they had an obligation to  convert, then we would 
have an obligation to accept them -- to tell them,  preach to them, mekarev 
them, and to accept any and all would-be converts.   We have no such 
obligation.  We only have an obligation to teach them the  sheva mitzvos. 
 
A bais din has every right to evaluate would-be gerim for knowledge,  
sincerity, emotional stability, whatever.  If the BD had an /obligation/ to  accept 
gerim, that would create on the part of the would-be convert a  concomitant 
/right/ -- the /right/ to be Jewish.  There is no such  right.  It's a privilege, 
not a right.  Of course we have in general  been accepting of sincere 
converts, after the conversion, and the Torah has many  exhortations to be fair, 
kind, welcoming and just to gerei tzedek.   None of which says a bais din /must/ 
accept for giyur every would-be  convert who shows up.




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



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/deb5afd0/attachment.html 

I am not looking for sources. This is deliberate on my part. This is so 
much /seichel ha'yashar/ that I don't want to demean it by an appeal to 
sources. That being said, and in that vein:

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> You are making an assertion based upon your sevora. You haven't brought
> any sources that state what you seem to be such an obvious position.
>
>   
See above.
Your pshat in Rashi is strained. In now way does Rash indicate that he 
is talking about all geirim, or geirin in general.

> It is important to note that there is a conflation of two issues here. 
> Accepting the convert and the historical, sociological and psychological 
> reality that most of the time the convert  is not successful and is 
> detrimental to the Jewish people.
>
>   
To me that seems paradoxical.
> On the one hand there is clearly an advantage to increase the ranks of 
> those who truly serve G-d through Torah. However the statements I have 
> cited deal with the reality that our Sages throughout the ages have 
> experienced that  there is a significant downside to converting someone 
> who is not the ideal - and that the typical convert is far from ideal. 
> Thus we have gedolim such as the Achiezer and Rav Moshe Feinstein who 
> say they have nothing to do with converting people because of the high 
> failure rate.
>
>   
I don't say /"there is clearly an advantage to increase the ranks of 
those who truly serve G-d through Torah."/ I am not sure that is 
necessarily true. What I am saying is that as /gomlei chasadim/ we have 
an obligation to accept a person who sincerely and truly wants to be 
/davek/ in Hashem and in Torah to the ultimate extent.
> Consequently on the ideal level I would agree with you. However on the 
> day to day level of reality - most of the time the acceptance of geirim 
> is in fact detrimental to the Jewish people. That is why various 
> communities (e.g., Syrian) have banned the acceptance of geirim.
>
>   
To my opinion, the Syrian practice is vile. The only possible 
justification for it is that they say it is not their obligation,as a 
minority in a sea of Ashkenazim, to be the ones that are mekkabel the Gerim.
> There is a parallel discussion in Chazal as to whether it is better to 
> be born or not (Eiruvin 13b; Berachos 17a). For most people (and souls) 
> the answer is no.
>   
But once they are here, if /pishpush u'mishmush b'ma'aseihem/ leads them 
to the inevitable conclusion, then...
See above.

KT,
YGB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/733a066e/attachment.htm 

 
 
Have to fix another little typo, sorry.  I wrote:  >> "Cloning" means that 
the genetic material to form  the new  
animal is taken from the nucleus of an existing animal<<
 
>>>>>
Meant to say, from the nucleus OF A CELL of an existing animal.
 
I don't know what the "nucleus of an existing animal" would be  anyway!  
 




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



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/2b1d9d07/attachment.html 

 
 
From: Gila Atwood <gila@atwood.co.il>
>>  The only  other time over 12 years of childbearing and nursing I've had 
to break the fast  was Tisha BeAv when I was nursing a baby seven months old. 
(supplemented)   It was 3 p.m. on a hot afternoon and I was starting to feel 
faint. Husband  insisted I drink my fill right then. <<




>>>>>
This reminds me that many rabbanim are even more mekil (or I should  really 
say, machmir) with a nursing mother than with a pregnant woman, because  /if/ 
the infant's only source of liquid is his mother's milk, and /if/ the  mother 
becomes dehydrated, then it is actually pikuach nefesh for the  baby.  Even 
according to those who say that you don't have to worry about a  miscarriage 
because there's no issue of pikuach nefesh to save a fetus (which  BTW are there 
really people who say that?), there is certainly an issue with a  baby that is 
born already.
 
In my case my babies were willing to take liquid from a bottle or  sippy cup 
and they were not newborns by the time I got to YK, so I nursed them  only a 
little and fobbed them off with other drinks, and didn't have to break my  fast 
on TB or YK.  (I did stay in bed most of the day, did not go to shul  even at 
night for Eicha or Kol Nidre, and kept as quiet and cool as  possible, and 
thank G-d for air-conditioning.)



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



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/c4ed9dab/attachment.htm 

RMS writes: 

>There are several separate issues that this raises. 

>1) What is the level of risk, and nature of risk, that is halachically 
>acceptable in this context?  Is it merely risk to the mother, or also 
>risk to the fetus? How machmir are we on pikuach nefesh? 

I think this is one of the key factors here.  My sense is that in
general the doctors are worried about miscarriage and/or prematurity (ie
risk to the fetus) and not so much about the risk to the mother. 

My sense is also that this is not just (or particularly) related to fear
of a malpractice suit.  The medical stance taken here in the UK
regarding fasting is similar to the US despite it also being a
jurisdiction (along with Israel) in which medical malpractice suits are
far rarer, and unlikely to be occasioned by this sort of thing (it is
too indirect, after all the patient is the one doing the fasting, not
the doctor).  

However, a lot of what is driving my sense about this is my experience
when I was nearly 34 weeks pregnant with my youngest.  At that time I
needed a very minor medical procedure, that normally could have been
carried out by a local doctor, if not at home.  However, because I was
34 weeks pregnant, my local NHS hospital insisted on hospitalising me
for the night.  As the consultant explained to me, at nearly 34 weeks
*anything* can set off labor, but that at that stage it is likely that a
baby cannot yet breath in air.  In order to make it more likely that the
baby could breathe in air if I did go into labor, they gave me an
injection of a steriod that, if I did not go into labor, would pass
harmlessly through my body, but if I did go into labor, would somehow
strengthen the baby's lungs and give it a fighting chance of being able
to breath in air.  Everything seemed fine, but the next morning the
machine detected contractions (so minor that I could barely feel them,
and if I had not been lying in bed doing nothing but watch out for them
I am sure I would never have noticed them), so then of course there was
no way they were letting me out (even though that evening was Shavuos,
and I was desperate to get home).  In any event,  I stayed another two
nights, the contractions completely disappeared, and they let me out -
and in the end the baby wasn't born until Shiva Aser B'Tamuz, well and
truly at term.

And yet a busy NHS hospital was prepared to block a bed for several
nights because something really minor *might* set off labor.  Note also
that they were clear that if I *had* been at term, they would not have
hospitalised me, because if it had set off labor, so what?  They don't
hospitalise all pregnant women at term in case they go into labor.  And
the whole tenor of the discussion was that they were not worried about
me, but about the fact that the lungs at not quite 34 weeks were
probably not sufficiently developed for the baby to survive without neo
natal care, and they therefore wanted all of that close by if I went
into labor.  That also seems to suggest (although I never asked this at
the time) that a labor at that time would be much faster than could be
expected at term, because at term they do not hospitalise you, they ask
you to wait until you are in established labor and then come in.  Here,
they wanted me there so all the equipment would be there, not to rush in
if there were any contractions (which again would have saved them money
and not have blocked a bed).

The other reason I suspect we are talking about risk to the fetus here
is because (and I may be propagating medical myths here), it was once
explained to me that women are programmed to miscarry in times of famine
and other risky situations - because if there is a famine, then there
will not be enough food for the baby when it comes out, and yet by
draining the mother, it may put the mother's survival at risk.  The
balance between baby and mother is thus tilted in favour of the mother,
so that she will live to get pregnant another day (and/or look after her
existing offspring) rather than have a "perish with the Plishtim" type
situation.  If this is indeed true, and not mythology (and it does sound
logical), then again the risks of fasting would seem to be borne by the
fetus.  I would also indicate the nature of the risk, and that it is a
real risk - it is just presumably that 25 hours is not, in most women,
enough to trigger a "famine" response (especially if they take it easy
etc), but in some whose threshold to trigger miscarriage is lower than
others, it might be.

The only risk I have really heard about to the mother (assuming no
specific complications) is that she may be too tired and worn out by
fasting for labor, and that may be dangerous. For some reason though I
have only ever heard that in regard to women who are at term (which
again suggests that my supposition above regarding labor being much
quicker and hence less dangerous before term might be correct - it does
make sense that is it more dangerous for the woman to give birth at term
than to miscarry earlier, because the baby is so much smaller - and
hence presumably causes much less disruption).  I would also note that
most women fast during labor (it's the nature of the beast), and for
those with a long labor - and 40 hours for a first child is not unheard
of, (I gather that is the time limit in my local NHS hospital (ie the
cautious one referred to above) before they will do an emergency
cesarian, if no other risk factors are showing that necessitates it
earlier), that will mean 40 hours of fasting prior to the actual birth.
But on the other hand, if you are possibly facing a 40 hour labor, then
it might be problematic if you had a 24 hour fast on top of that.  I am
sure there is data on length of labor for premature births and
miscarriages versus term births which might add to this part of the
discussion, and might explain why the heterim I have generally heard in
relation to Yom Kippur/Tisha B'Av, absent specific concerns, have all
been for women who are already at term.

>1) Our current medical knowledge is such that we disagree with the 
>position that fasting is safe for most healthy pregnant women 
>(essentially a nishtanu hatevaim position - even if we mean by 
>nishtanu hatevaim that our knowledge is different (rabbenu avraham ben 
>harambam) (In some ways, this is similar to the metziza debate - that
current 
>medical knowledge would suggest the halacha is based on a medical 
>position that is no longer considered valid - but here there is the 
>problem of an issur karet, which makes it more difficult) 

Well I am not sure.   It could also be said to be more like the case of
mila.  We know that some babies indeed die machmas mila.  In fact, we
have a halacha that states that mila is not required if a boy has two
brothers who have previously died from mila.  But for everybody else,
including boy number 2, you do indeed perform mila, despite the halacha
recognising that there is some level of risk for everybody, albeit that
it may be low.  If doctors came out today and said don't do it because
of the risk, we wouldn't listen to them.

If anything, the risk in relation to pregnancy seems much more accepted
within our sources as meaning that women often shouldn't fast, as
witnessed by the discussion regarding the minor fasts.

>2)  While there may be a substantial population, or even the majority, 
>  of women for whom fasting in pregnancy may be safe, our current 
>status of medical knowledge does not allow us to determine who those 
>women are - we have learned enough to know that there is increased 
>risk for some, but not enough to identify more precisely the at risk  
>population - and safek pikuach nefesh lehakel... 

But if I am right and the risks are fundamentally to the fetus, then you
have to make the judgement that not putting the fetus at risk is an
issue of pikuach nefesh, and I am not sure that is necessarily agreed -
unless you are talking close to term. You have to hold that a fetus
constitutes a nefesh to which pikuach nefesh applies, which means you
end up on one side of the abortion debate that we have rehashed a number
of times here.  

>3) While still recognizing that some women may still be safe fasting, 
>to dramatically limit the number of women who would be allowed to 
>fast (for example, healthy women who are already at term - and  
>therefore delivering right after YK would not be problematic). 

Well as mentioned, out there in the real world, my sense is that the
heterim are more generally given when the woman is at term than when
they are not.  Which would make sense if a) the risk to the woman and
not just the fetus was greater at term and/or b) the fetus was regarded
as a nefesh to whom pikuach nefesh applied at term, but not before.

>Meir Shinnar 

Regards

Chana



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 11
**************************************

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..."