Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 25

Thu, 17 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Tamuz-Avodah Zarah-Mentioning Names only Asur if still Worshipped? (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Re: Snake or Dragon? (Saul Guberman)
• 3. Re: spanish minhagim (Simon Montagu)
• 4. Re: What was actually written on the luchos, zachor (Simon Montagu)
• 5. Re: spanish minhagim (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: FW: chemotherapy (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Ribis and LH re: Non Jews - Crossing Threads (Micha Berger)
• 8. 15 fruits- [RavAviner] Parashat Beshalach 5768 (JRich@Sibson.com)
• 9. Re: The Nature of Doubt (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Daniel Israel)
• 12. Re: Fasting on YK (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 13. The Gaon/Medicine (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: Snake or Dragon? (Michael Poppers)

> : [Also, given that there are still small groups of neopagans that claim
> : to worship ancient Greek/Scandinavian deities, does that remove the
> : heter, if there is one, from mentioning them?]

That's why I don't say any foreign deity's name, at all. You never
know when someone might still be worshipping him. I'll either say
something like "Zeusy" "Krishy" or "J-man", or I'll just spell the
name out.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Jan 15, 2008 8:46 PM, <RallisW@aol.com> wrote:

> When in Shemos (7:8-13) Moshe and Aharon appear before Paroah and Aharon
> throws down his staff and it turns into a "Sanin" not "Nochosh." Could the
> term sanin refer to a dragon rather than the traditional snake?
> The word sanin also appears in Bereshis (1:21), "taninim hagedolim.."
> usually translated as great sea giants.
>

Rashi translates it as Nachash.  Others(I don't have a Chumash with me)
translate it as crocodile.  Maybe based on "Sanin" being giant creature; the
croc is the giant creature of the Nile.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080116/c3531914/attachment.html 

On Jan 16, 2008 2:08 PM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> After kiddush and before hamotzi they have a minhag to eat three foods
> that have three
> berachot (etz,adamah,shehakol). I was always taught to have hamotzi as
> soon as possible
> after kiddush

My wife's brothers also have this minhag. The reason for it is to make
up the total of 100 berachot per day in spite of the shorter Amida on
Shabbat.

On Jan 16, 2008 2:01 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rabbi Benjamin Blech, perhaps following Rav Hirsch in his Collected
> Writings (I forget which essay), says that each of the bein adam
> l'chavero has a corresponding bein adam l'makom.

They are both following the Mechilta on Parshat Yitro, quoted by Rashi
on Shir Hashirim 4:5

>
> (1) Hashem is one <--> (6) Don't murder someone *in His image*
> (2) Don't commit idolatry <--> (7) Don't commit adultery
> (3) Don't use His name vainly <--> (8) Don't steal ("abduct") - I
> cannot remember the relationship between these two. Can anyone figure
> one out? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that a thief
> thinks Hashem isn't looking, and a vain oath-taker thinks Hashem isn't
> there to give a dang? This seems weak, and I cannot remember what
> Rabbi Blech says.

"Mi shehu gonev, lasof ba lidei shevu`at shav"

> (4) Keep Shabbat <--> (9) Don't bear false witness (Shabbat =
> testimony that Hashem created world, and violating Shabbat is thus
> false testimony)
> (5) Honor your parents <--> (10) Don't covet (I also cannot remember
> this relationship either)

"Mi shehu hhomed, sof molid ben shehu mekallel et aviv ve'et imo
umechabed lemi she'eino aviv"

Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 2:08 PM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After kiddush and before hamotzi they have a minhag to eat three foods
>> that have three
>> berachot (etz,adamah,shehakol). I was always taught to have hamotzi as
>> soon as possible
>> after kiddush
> 
> My wife's brothers also have this minhag. The reason for it is to make
> up the total of 100 berachot per day in spite of the shorter Amida on
> Shabbat.

A vort I heard years ago from R Hershel Fogelman of Worcester:
Every day one should say 100 brachot, but on Shabbat the davening
plus 3 meals only add up to 80, so one must make up 20 from voluntary
brachot.  The Rambam (Chovel Umazik 7:14) says that if someone "steals"
a bracha (or any other mitzvah) from someone else, he must pay him 10
gold coins in compensation.  So the monetary value of 100 brachot is
1000 gold coins, and the 20 brachot that must be made up voluntarily
are worth 200.  "Ha'elef lecha Shlomo", i.e. Melech Shehashalom Shelo,
we owe you 1000, "umatayim lanotrim et piryo", and 200 for those who
keep it with fruit.


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

R' Micha Berger asked:
> What are the cases we have for eis la'asos Lashem and
> hora'as sha'ah? The last few times around I asked if
> there is a case of eis la'asos Lashem involving a real
> issur and no nevu'ah. ...
> Hora'as sha'ah, OTOH, is defined in Hil' Mamrim 2:4 as
> the principle of la'aqor davar min haTorah besheiv
> ve'al ta'aseh -- which is limited to sheiv ve'al
> ta'aseh, the gezeirah being to protect something more
> chamur, etc...

I would suggest that a good example of this Horaas Shaah might be Rav YB Soloveitchik's stand on mixed-seating synagogues: That even if one's only opportunity to hear the shofar is to enter a mixed-seating synagogue, it is better not to go. ("The Sanctity of the Synagogue", page 115)

This seems to fit the definition as brought by RMB: It suspends a d'Oraisa, but only passively, and is for a specific purpose which RYBS felt to be more serious than Tekias Shofar, namely
>>> the "christianization" (I have no
>>> other name for it) of the synagogue"
(ibid, p 117, also see p 110)

More food for thought:

RMB's post seems to presume, or at least suspect, that Eis Laasos and Horaas Shaah are two different things. But my suspicion is that Eis Laasos is the source pasuk which justifies the concept of Horaas Shaah. For if the permission to make a Horaas Shaah does not come from Eis Laasos, then where *does* it come from?

Also: Horaas Shaah, as defined in the Rambam which RMB cited, refers only to *temporary* gezeros. Surely the absence of Shofar on Shabbos is a permanent measure, so we can still search for other examples. May I suggest the following: There are stories of certain individuals in the concentration camps who fasted throughout all of Pesach, for lack of chometz-free food. One could argue that this was a violation of Pikuach Nefesh, but they could answer that it was a temporary Horaas Shaah, to help inspire the others and uplift them.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Boost your business with a small business loan. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3no7Ya8L6AiefBRphHRKDtQ5YmJuGTiVqI21OqAjOB1iplrU/

On Mon, January 14, 2008 11:01 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Let me reiterate what I consider a core Torah Princciple - Kedoshim
: [QTYD} is about fostering a mamleches kohanim vgomer
: Or as I term it" Aa JUST and HOLY society"

I don't think you mean all QTYD. Ve'asisa hatov vehayashar and
vehalakhta bidrakhav are inherent in what it means to be a moral
tzelem E-lokim, not specific to beris Sinai.

: As a SOCIETY" Ribis and LH would foster eretz ochecls yoshveha c"v...

Well, the requirement for them to have a gov't with a legal and penal
system is all about benei Noach not having a country in which people
eat each other alive. (BTW, thanks for showing the connection between
the meraglim's statement and that mishnah.)

: We must
: have a co-operative and mutally respectful [even LOVING] society all
: based upon v'havta lerei'acha kamocha etc.....  Thus we have a strict
: code of conductt to foster achicha, amecha. amisecha, etc.

Ribis is clearly stated in the pasuq as being about "achikha", so the
basic notion is incontrovertible. But is that qedushah, or unity due
to areivus? IOW, it's more about the need to work together for the
common end than the qedushah itself.

I am trying to defend the argument that the Jewish individual has a
different mission even as an individual than a non-Jew does in
addition to the different role he has qua member of BY.

I have problems with claiming the difference is only as a member of
the nation. A Jew on a desert island, and thus out of contact with all
other people, who eats treif in total privacy, would still have to
bring a chatas. A non-Jew who does the same would not. One can argue
that he is still mystically connected to the Jewish masses, but that's
far from anything R' Leibowitz would have said.

And so, I would disagree on two points:

1- It's a bit much to say there is no chiyuv on Benei Noach to
maintain a unified and cooperating society. It defies the implication
of one of the 7 mitzvos, which requires a lawful one.

2- It is a leap from saying that beris Sinai created a notion of a
Jewish corporate entity and mission to saying that the role of the Jew
is only in terms of that corporate entity and mission.

And, given that there are at least two berisim specific to Jews,
perhaps there is explicitly one of each.

For example:
...
: Think of Am Yisroel as a big family and that behavior within that unit
: must be on a very high plane.  Behavior re: Gentiles is held to a much
: looser standard so long as it does not produce Hillul Hashem, violate
: gezel, or damge one's own nehsama, there is more room to maneuver.

Being unhelpful to a stranger is less damage to one's own neshamah
than being equally unhelpful to family. The latter far more reinforces
basic callousness.

Thus, the two aren't really separable.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

The Custom of Eating Fruit on Tu Bishvat

[Shut She?eilat Shlomo vol. 1 #212]

Q: There are those who say that we are obligated to eat fifteen different fruits on Tu Bishvat, since Tu Bishvat is on the fifteenth day of the month of Shevat.  Is this a custom or a law?

A: There is no mention in the Mishnah or Talmud that Tu Bishvat is a day of joy, rather it is the new year for trees. This means that it is the date that differentiates between the fruit of the past year and the coming year in terms of the obligation to tithe the produce (Rosh Hashanah 15).  Among the Rishonim (Earlier Authorities), Tu Bishvat is mentioned as a day on which Tachanun is not recited (Minhagei Maharil), and this is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 131:6).  The Magen Avraham mentions the Ashkenazic custom to enjoy many fruits (brought in the Mishnah Berurah ibid. #31), and this is also the Sephardic custom (Pri Eitz Hadar ? seder limud le-leil Tu Bishvat).  The quantity of fifteen fruits, however, is not mentioned.  Our master, Rav Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Cohain Kook, writes, "As is customary, there is on it [Tu Bishvat] an impression of a festive day, the first indication of the revival of the settlement in our Holy Land (Igrot Ha-Re?eiyah vol. 2, p. 61
 ).  It says in the Jerusalem Talmud (end of Kiddushin), "Rav Bon said: In the future a person will have to give an accounting for all that his eyes beheld, but he did not eat."  Rav Bon?s intention was not that a person should be a glutton and eat everything in his sight; rather he should endeavor to taste everything (obviously everything that is permissible) at least once.  And it also relates that Rabbi Eleazar was concerned about this idea, and he would save his money in order to eat each of the year?s new produce.  Similarly, the Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chaim 225:19) writes, "It is meritorious to eat a little from each year?s new produce. The reason is in order to demonstrate the preciousness of Hashem?s creation." He does not mention, however, that one must eat fifteen types of fruit.

Summary: It is an ancient custom to enjoy many fruits on Tu Bishvat. And it is praiseworthy to eat fruits which one does not normally eat during the year.

  


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.

On Wed, January 16, 2008 2:11 am, R Richard Wolberg wrote (quoted?):
: Amalek is the essence of doubt, of irrational challenge to truth.
: (Thus the Hebrew word Amalek has a numerical value of 240 -- the same
: as the word safek, "doubt"). Because the people of Israel had
: succumbed to the Amalek within their own souls, they became vulnerable
: to attack by Amalek the nation.          (The Chassidic Masters)

Thus a connection to "vehalakhtem imi beqeri" repeated frequently in
the Tokhachah. While the translation of qeri literally fits, Chazal do
associate it with "miqreh" -- the belief that the oneshim are
happenstance causing the escalation of onesh.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

On Tue, January 15, 2008 7:18 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
:> Where I would see more clear problems arising is if someone asks the
:> meis to do something other than ask HQBH. To do it himself. Or
:> "tzadiq gozeir ve'E-lokim meqayeim". Turning the meis or mal'akh into
:> a force, a source of yeshuah, in and of itself.
:
: How is that different?  It's still HQBH who is mekayem.  All the
: tzadik does is "gozer"....

That's why I used relative terms. Asking a friend to say tehillim for
a sick person is clearly mutar. Praying to a demigod is not. At what
point does one make the transition to being like a friend and
permissable to being like a demigod.

Applying "tzadiq gozeir" is one step on the line closer to the demigod
than asking for their baqashos from Hashem.

I am not expressing a position where the spectrum is split into issur
vs heter, just defining the spectrum. I did mention the Gra's
position, which I follow in my own practice -- but also acknowledged
that it's a minority opinion that runs counter to common pesaq. It
just is most intuitive to me, so until I can say Shalom Aleikhem and
be sure I'm not misunderstanding it in a means that is AZ, I will
avoid it. Qua chumrah, not din. As I wrote, I left the din question
open.

...
: Saying "the tzadik helped me" is shorthand for "the tzadik through
: his brachah induced Hashem to help me"....

But one gives credit to the tzadiq, the other to the Borei. As I wrote
in the earlier post "Turning the meis or mal'akh into a force, a
source
of yeshuah, in and of itself."

Besides, trying to manipulate the Borei through tzadiq gozeir is so
much like curing through lachash... This might be a second issue, or a
critical bit of where asking for help crosses the line into violating
the 5th ikkar (not to worship demigods or avodas Hashem via
intermediaries).

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:42:29 -0700 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
wrote:
>On Tue, January 15, 2008 7:18 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
>: How is that different?  It's still HQBH who is mekayem.  All the
>: tzadik does is "gozer"....
>
>That's why I used relative terms. Asking a friend to say tehillim 
>for a sick person is clearly mutar. Praying to a demigod is not. 
At 
>what point does one make the transition to being like a friend and
>permissable to being like a demigod.

That is not a good example.  The friend has bechira.  An malach 
does not, and neither does a niftar.  A "demigod" is either a 
malach that someone is misidentifying or a non-existant entity, but 
in either case it is being treated as if it has a bechira that it 
does not.

(I guess one could argue the latter a little bit, I just heard in a 
shiur that the neshamah of a niftar can come when the niftar 
desires it.  Similarly, in the midrash of Rachel, it would seem 
that the Avos had bechira whether or not to respond to Yirmiahu's 
request to intervene.  Bottom line: I would say that it is clear 
cut that asking intercession of something with independent bechira 
is a problem.  The problem is whether there is another line.)

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:10:04 +0200
"Ilana Sober" <ilanasober@gmail.com> wrote:

[context is an unwell woman fasting on YK]

> AFAIK, if no one else is available, the husband should also stay home
> and take care of his wife and/or kids if that will enable the wife to
> fast.

---Quote---

And it is permitted to kindle a light for a dangerously ill person,
even if there is an already kindled light at the neighbor, if the
relocation of it to the vicinity of the ill one will cause great pain
and suffering to the neighbor, e.g. if the neighbor is sleeping and it
will be necessary to awaken him.

---End---

Sh'miras Shabbos K'hilchasah 32:65

---Quote---

Also, a neighbor, or anyone else, is not obligated, me'ikkar ha'din, to
transfer [to an ill person] on Shabbos food that he has prepared for
himself, in order to prevent cooking for the dangerously ill person,
if by his transfer of the food to the ill one he will remain without hot
food on Shabbos.

---End---

ibid. 32:74

These positions are attributed to RSZA, and see notes 166 and 189. [My
translation from the Hebrew edition.]

The principle is that I am not obligated to suffer in order to prevent
hilul Shabbos on behalf of a holeh she'yesh bo sakkanah; one could
therefor argue that a husband who really minded missing YK prayers
would not be obligated to miss them in order to save his wife from the
necessity of eating.  Of course, the language (RSZA's?) contains the
wording "za'ar gadol" and "mi'dina", and RnIS's comment that the husband
"should also stay home" may still be true.

I also do not know if this view is accepted by other Poskim.

> - Ilana

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

Here or on the blogs there has been discussion that the Gaon's father
told him not to study medicine because then he would have to heal people
(take time away from learning)

I was just listening to a shiur from R' HS where he said the gaon's
shita was that one did not go to doctors but prayed for a refuah.  It
was not the main point of the shiur so maybe there's more texture to it,
but I thought it of interest in this discussion.
 
 
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/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080117/83d29cbb/attachment.htm 

In Avodah Digest V25#24, RWR wrote:
> When in Shemos (7:8-13) Moshe and Aharon appear before Paroah and Aharon
throws down his staff and it turns into a "Sanin" not "Nochosh." Could the
term
sanin refer to a dragon rather than the traditional snake?
The word sanin also appears in Bereshis (1:21), "taninim hagedolim.."
usually
translated as great sea giants. <
As you note from 1-1:21 (which reports the creation of sea and air
creatures in parallel to the plan as expressed in the previous verse), a
"tannin" would seem to be a water-based creature (RSRH ad loc. relates it
to the Chaldean word for "fish") -- see, inter alia, Y'sha'yahu 27:1,
Y'chezkeil 29:3 and 32:2 (which describe Par'oh! and NB that as per the
commentaries, "tannim"="tannin"), and T'hilim 74:13 (as per the
commentaries, describing the Egyptians).  Re Shmos 7's references, RSRH
translates "tannin" as crocodile, a large, water-based creature found in
the Nile (again, see Y'chezkeil 29:3).

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080116/2c7dafc3/attachment.html 

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


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


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

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..."