Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 129

Thu, 10 Apr 2008

• 1. Halakhos of a US Governor (Micha Berger)
• 2. buddhism (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: FW: Medicine for a Metzora (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Chana Luntz)
• 5. Re: Mutzkeh: Sticks, Stones, and Pets (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. Is having a good time ossur (sefira/availus and music) (M Cohen)
• 7. Hechsher for Tevilas Kelim Exemptions (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: FW: Chinese repression in Tibet - al pi Torah? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Hechsher for Tevilas Kelim Exemptions (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Halakhos of a US Governor (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: FW: Medicine for a Metzora (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Halakhos of a US Governor (Simon Montagu)

Governor Corzine signed two religious protection bills in the banquet
hall of the shul in which I davened Shacharis this morning. (The
curious can see <http://tinyurl.com/5mcqm9> from the NJ Jewish
Standard.) The mounting hullabaloo brought to mind the question...

When greeting the Queen of England, one does not say "shechalaq
mikevodo levasar vedam" besheim umalkhus because her majesty doesn't
make life-and-death decisions over her subjects.

Which is relevant -- life, or death?

A US governor has the authority to stay an execution (at least in
every state this comes up in a movie, it seems). But he does not have
the power to execute. Does this mean that Gov. Corzine would rank the
berakhah besheim umalkhus or not?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

CC: RRYE, rav of aforementioned shul.

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

If they bring fruit as a tribute to some effigy, it's not alst believing
that the Buddha was a god.>>

I once heard that Hong Kong is one of the biggest importers of oranges most
of it being laid at the feet of some Buddha statue.

I don't think that in AZ the intention of the person is important.
In the days of chazal if this was the way of worship then it is AZ.
How many Romans really believed in Merculis (Mercury?) having
stones thrown at him is irrelevant.

In fact Rambam states that the origin of AZ was to consider the sum etc as
servants of Hashem. It is still AZ

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel

(This post is not to dispute any of the answers that others have offered, but only to offer yet another perspective on it.)

Someone asked:
> It seems clear that in those days, a person speaking Loshon
> Hara, Motzi Shem Ra etc would end up becoming a Metzora. So
> which normal bar-daas wouldn't refrain from LH, knowing that
> he'll get on-the-spot punishment?

You're absolutely correct. A "normal bar-daas" would of course refrain
under such circumstances. But ain adam chotay elah in nichnas bo ruach
shtus ("No one sins except during temporary insanity"). And then he gets
tzaraas.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here to compare top medical billing products, get demos, and quotes.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3oiDm9gUV4djDnBwcrbAquOBKrW85rw2iYHEyXSf2tk4dxeq/

RMB writes:.
> 
> Not only incomprehensible, but digarded by halachic process. Yes, ol
> malkhus Shamayim, milah and tevilah is codified -- that /is/ geirus.

And then write:


> Sort of. As RYBS writes, the binding nature of shas is because it was
> accepted across kelal Yisrael. And thus, in his day, it was safe to say
> that shas was the last book with such authority. However, the SA too
> was accepted across kelal Yisrael. As RARakeffet put it -- why do you
> study SA for semichah and not the Rambam, Rif or Tur? 

I agree with this, which is why I think it worth while to just list out the
Shulchan Aruch on Hilchos Gerim  - because I think the problem is that the
Shulchan Aruch is not as clear cut as you would like it to be - it rather
has a bit for everyone:

So here is hilchos gerim - Yoreh Deah siman 268 (I am only doing a full
translation where it seems to bear on our question):

Si'if 1: a ger needs mila first, and if already mulled the requirement for
dam bris, and if his gid is cut off, it doesn't prevent him from converting,
tevila is enough. Rema, if he toyveled before he mulled, bideved it is a
tevila.

Si'if 2: When he comes to convert they say to him, what did you see that
brought you to convert do you not know that Yisroel at this time are
afflicted and oppressed and troubles come upon them and if he says I know
but I am unworthy to mix with them they accept him immediately and they make
known to him the essence of the religion is the unity of Hashem and the
issur of worshipping idols and they speak at length with him with regard to
this and they make known to him a few of the mitzvos kalos and the mitzvos
chamuros and they make know to him a few of the punishments for the mitzvos
and they say to him, before you came to this learning if you ate chelev you
would not be deserving of the punishment of kares if you were mechallel
shabbas you would not have been deserving of the punishment of skila and now
if you eat chelev, you will be punishable with kares and if you are mechalel
shabbas, you will be chayav skila.  But they do not speak at great length on
this and they do not go into great detail and just as they tell him the
punishments of the mitzvos, so they tell to him the rewards of the mitzvos
and they make known to him that if he performs the mitzvos he will inherit
the world to come and that there is no complete tzadik unless he is a master
of wisdom who performs these mitzvos and they make known and say to him
behold know that the world to come isn't established except for the
righteous and these are Yisroel and this that you see that Yisroel is in
pain in this world it is good that is done for them that they are not able
to receive the majority of good in this world like the ovdei cochavim lest
it be enough for them and they lose the reward of the world to come and HKBH
does not bring on them too much punishment so they should be destroyed
rather all the ovdei cochavim will be destroyed and they stand and they
expound on this matter so as to endear them to him and if he accepts they
mul him immediately and they wait until he is fully healed and after that
they toyvel him ... and three stand by him and make known o him  a few of
the mizvos kalos and the mitzvos chumros a second time and he is standing in
the water ...

Si'if 3:  All the matters of a ger between making known to him the mitzvos
to accept them between the mila between the tevila needs to be with 3 kosher
to judge and during the day and this is davka l'chatchila but bideved if he
was mulled or toyveled before 2, at night, or even if he was not toyveled
l'shem gerus except a man toyveled for keri or a woman for nidah he is a ger
and permitted to a Jewish woman except for the kabalas mitzvos that prevents
if it isn't during the day and before three and the Rif and the Rambam say
even bideved if he toyveled or mulled before two or at night it prevents and
he is assur to a Jewish woman ...

Si'if 7: A non jewish minor if he has a father he is able to convert him and
if he does not have a father and he comes to convert or his mother brings
him to convert beis din will convert him as it is a zechus for him v'zakin
adam shelo befanav and in both the case in which the minor is converted by
his father or the minor is converted by beis din he is able to protest when
he reaches adulthood and his din is not like a Yisroel mumar but like a non
Jew

Si'f 8: In what respect are we talking that he does not go according to
minhag yisroel from the time the reaches adulthood but if he goes according
to minhag yisroel when he reaches adulthood after that he is unable to
protest.

Si'if 12: when a convert comes to convert check after him whether it because
of money he will be given or because of a high position that he will inherit
or because of fear that he comes to enter the religion and if it is a man
check after him maybe he has set his eyes on a Jewish woman and if a woman
check after her that maybe she has set her eyes on a Jewish man if none of
these things are found on them, make known to them the weight of the yoke of
the Torah and the trouble that is imposed upon the amei ha'aretz so that
they will desist, but if they accept and do not desist and you see that they
return with love, accept them and if they are not checked after or they do
not make known to them the reward of the mitzvos or their punishment and
they are mulled and toyveled before three hedyotos behold they are a ger and
even if you know that because of this matter they converted since they were
mulled and toyvelled they go out of the category of ovdei cochavim and we
are choshesh them until they reveal their righteousness and even if they
return and serve idols behold they are like a Yisroel mumar whose kiddushin
is a kiddushin.

And the Shach says there on si'if 12: When he comes to convert: And it is
written in tosphos that this is from perek kama of shabbas that he came
before Hillel and said to him convert me on condition that I will be cohen
gadol and in the end he did it l'shem shamayim .. and from here one can
learn that it is all according to what the eyes of the beis din see and so
writes the drisha.

So you see it is not just REB saying we should act like Chazal and roll back
the clock on conversion back past the Shulchan Aruch.  At least as far down
as the Shach, basing himself on tosphos and in explaining the Shulchan
Aruch, there is an understanding that a beis din can look at the situation
and decide to convert somebody who not only does not accept the full yoke of
the mitzvos, but who rejects some essential ones (like a ger cannot be cohen
gadol) and who does it out of ulterior motive.

And even from si'if 2, the matter does not seem so clear - the key as
articulated there is about wanting to join in with the Jewish people and if
that is clearly there, beis din seem to be authorised to accept him as a
convert even before any discussion of mitzvos occurs.  Yes it is clear they
then need to have a discussion about mitzvos and the need for a formal
"making known the mitzvos for acceptance" in si'3- but the plain reading of
the text is not as clear cut as your opinion would necessarily have it.

It is into this gap that people like REB and Rav Uzziel step when they talk
about loosening up the requirements for conversion for the general benefit.

And that is why in general I feel you are being unfair to REB.  I don't
believe he is talking about "rolling back" the Shulchan Aruch. Rather, as I
understand it, he is talking about utilising creative solutions within the
halacha as we have it today, ie as codified by the Shulchan Aruch, by
utilising the kinds of methods that Chazal used vis a vis the Oral Torah vis
a vis the Shulchan Aruch.  

The example I was always given of a R' Berkowitz "solution"
was - we have a need in a Jewish state for policemen.  We can't and
shouldn't delegate that to the goyim on Shabbas.  But that means we
need to have policemen out there "on the beat" policing - even in
circumstances where there is no clear cut pikuach nefesh scenario to
justify being mechalel shabbas.  So we need to be creative - we should
put policemen on bicycles!

Now bicycles are another example of a somewhat modern day machlokus,
where the consensus is that we don't use them.  But the Ben Ish Chai
says they are mutar l'hatchila.  In the face of the need for Jewish
policing, even on Shabbas, R' Berkowitz's approach is that we should
rely on what is somewhat a minority opinion.  I however do see a
significant difference between that and R'Berkowitz saying - well we
need Jewish policing, so therefore it is mutar to let them drive cars
on shabbas, even if there is no classic pikuach nefesh scenario.  The
latter it seems to me is the Conservative position, but neither does
that seem to me to involve anything at all creative.

Another example of this is the use of grama, as in grama switches, to
enable wheelchairs and such to be operated.  In the case of wheelchairs
etc, those in favour argue for kovod habrios and similar principles but
I gather there is increasing hostility within certain segments of the
charedi world to such applications.  The preference is rather to hire a
non Jew (perhaps because there seems to be a lot of historical precedent for
extreme laxity in amira l'akum).

But R' Berkowitz would almost certainly extend the situations in which
he would allow the use of grama switches not just to avoiding hiring
non Jewish labor for chollim and the like but to situations of enabling the
running of the State without relying on non Jewish labor (eg in the
electrical generators).

The argument is not, as I understand it, that we should roll back the clock
in terms of decided halacha, but that we should go back to Chazal and try
and internalise their thinking processes - that our thinking has become
rigidified along with the codifications and it is that aspect that is the
most unfortunate part about it.  Now you can legitimately counter that we
are not Chazal, and it is not appropriate for donkeys to think like angels.
But on the other hand, if we cannot learn from Chazal how to think, then
arguably we all ought to close our gemora and go home.  After all, we know
what happens to donkeys - they get left behind at the Akeida.

And I think that is REB's belief, is that if we were to think more like
Chazal, creative solutions would and are available.  That the problem is,
that we haven't internalised Chazal's values enough to try.

> :-)BBii!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

Regarding the linguistic terminology (Muktzeh= set aside) and theory of
Muktzeh, it is very important to note that there is a dispute between R'
Yehudah and R' Shimon in the Gemara as to  whether Muktzeh applies on
Shabbos at all, with R' Shimon holding that it does not, and that is how we
Pasken!

The Aruch Hashluchan in the beginning of OC 308 explains that the dispute
between R' Yehudah and R' Shimon revolves around the point raised - RY holds
that anything which is not actively designated or assumed by its
nature/function to be for a permitted Shabbos use is Muktzeh, whereas R'
Shimon holds that anything which is not actively rejected (Lo Chazi+Dochui
B'yadayim) is assumed to be Muchan, unless it is something which has no
designated use whatsoever.

It is also not at all Pashut that Keli SheMelachto L'Issur is a function of
Muktzeh in the sense of designation or lack thereof. It may be a separate
Gezeirah where there is concern that one might come to use it in a
prohibited fashion, and it isn't that there was a *relaxation* of Muktzeh in
terms of allowing the movement of a Keli Shemelachto L'Issur L'tzorech Gufo
UMekomo, but there was never any Gezeira on such a thing in the first place.
See GRA to YD 266. This can explain, e.g., the dispute whether a KSHML"A can
create a Bosis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080409/c84f8a39/attachment-0001.htm 

I also heard a rayah from a major RW posek/Rosh kollel that (at least
theoretically, but not necessarily in practice) that not all music is asur
during sefira/availus.

It's clear from the gemora that they played music at funerals.

obviously, some music IS appropo/not asur during sefira/availus.

Mordechai cohen

At several different housewares stores in Brooklyn and elsewhere, I have
seen various items bearing labels attesting to the item not needing tevilas
kelim, with the name or symbol of a prominent rav or organization. These
items include things like metal soup pots, so we're not dealing with an
exemption based on the type of utensil, or the material it is made of, but
I suppose it is based on being made by a Jewish manufacturer.

What I do not understand is how this can be so. Even if it was manufactured
by a Jewish factory, and is now sold by a Jewish retailer, wouldn't it
become obligated in tevilah if it had been owned by a non-Jewish
wholesaler? How can anyone know that the keli was continuously
Jewish-owned?

The situation seems analogous to a hechsher attesting to a product being
non- chometz she'avar alav hapesach. One could have such labels on the
*store*, but not on a product. (Actually, I have seen such labels affixed
by the manufacturer, but they specify that the flour used was not ground
until after Pesach, so that the whole question doesn't arise; this is like
certifying that a pot is patur from tevilah because it is really made of
plastic.)

Can anyone suggest how this works?

Thanks
Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click to find information on your credit score and your credit report.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3m2PcV04qojgtgH2eo2SISWwiRIdAv5XCN31XdN8yY4wWD6i/

Micha Berger wrote:

> Just to clear up the metzi'us:
> 
> The Dalai Lama is Buddhist. So, they aren't suppressing his religion in
> favor of Buddhism.
> 
> Buddhists don't bring fruit to idols. In fact, they don't believe
> they have a deity. I think that in our definition of terms, they are
> panentheists -- they believe that all of the universe is Divine, but G-d
> is greater than the universe. They believe in something called Buddha
> nature, which all things have, and it's only an illusion that anything
> else exists.

That's one metzius of Buddhism.  AIUI, it isn't anything even remotely
like the metzius of the religion of Tibet.  I'm far from an expert in
that religion, but everything I've read about it seems to indicate that
it is pure AZ, every bit as much as Terach's or the Romans'.

If you want an example of an Eastern religion that seems very similar
in many respects to Judaism (as least as seen from an L perspective)
have a look at Sikhism.

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

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> At several different housewares stores in Brooklyn and elsewhere, I
> have seen various items bearing labels attesting to the item not
> needing tevilas kelim, with the name or symbol of a prominent rav or
> organization. These items include things like metal soup pots, so
> we're not dealing with an exemption based on the type of utensil, or
> the material it is made of, but I suppose it is based on being made
> by a Jewish manufacturer.
> 
> What I do not understand is how this can be so. Even if it was
> manufactured by a Jewish factory, and is now sold by a Jewish retailer,
> wouldn't it become obligated in tevilah if it had been owned by a non-
>Jewish wholesaler? How can anyone know that the keli was continuously
> Jewish-owned?

There's a piece by the LR (in Shaarei Halacha Uminhag, among other places)
suggesting that what triggers the need for tevilas kelim is the *potential*
for the goy to have used it for treif, even though he didn't actually do
so.  The mere fact that the keli was in a situation where it could have
become treif is enough to impart to it a sort of tum'ah which is removed
by tevilah.

That is why the L minhag is to sell the kelim to the goy for Pesach, and
not to tovel them afterwards; since they didn't physically come into the
goy's possession, he was unable to use them for treif, so they weren't
even brushed by this peripheral tum'ah.

Based on this, *perhaps* one can speculate that if the keli leaves the
Jewish manufacturer in a sealed box, and arrives in that condition at the
Jewish retailer, the wholesaler in the middle is of no more consequence
than the drivers of the trucks that delivered it at each stage of its
travels.  Since they were unable to make it treif without opening the
box, which would be detected and would ruin its commercial value, perhaps
the fact that they were both legally and physically able to do so doesn't
matter.

But I'm skeptical of this argument, because if the wholesaler needed an
extra pot at home he could easily have decided to take this particular
one for his own use, in which case it wouldn't matter that he had ruined
its commercial value, because he had no intention of selling it.
Wholesalers do take stuff from the warehouse all the time, just as do
manufacturers and retailers, and every pot in the warehouse was in a
situation where he could have taken it and made it treif.

A much more likely possibility is that the "hechsher" is only of value
if it's accompanied by more "hechsherim" attesting to each stage of the
keli's travels.  If a Jewish wholesaler buys from a Jewish manufacturer
and sells to a Jewish retailer, how is the consumer to know all that?
These certificates would be useful in such a situation.

Here's another thought: if the keli was manufactured by a Jew, then
it starts with a chazaka of not needing tevilah.  If we don't know who
the subsequent owners were, on what basis should we assume they were
goyim?  Perhaps the "hechsher" on the manufacturer is enough to
establish a petur from tevilah, so long as one doesn't know for a
fact that there was a goy somewhere in the chain of transmission.

As it is, I have heard that there is a minhag among some in NY not to
make a brocho on tevilas kelim, because there are enough Jews involved
at each stage of the business to create a sofek brochos.

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

Micha Berger wrote:

> A US governor has the authority to stay an execution (at least in
> every state this comes up in a movie, it seems).

In Texas he can only delay it on his own authority for up to 30 days.
Any further delay or permanent clemency must be recommended to him
by the Board of Pardons.


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

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:56pm EDT, R Daniel Israel wrote:
: The only nafka mina I see is that in the teva model, one could heal 
: tzaras with a medical intervention, and it would require HP to 
: cause the intervention to fail, assuming HKB"H didn't want the 
: person cured.  As opposed to the miraculous explanation, in which 
: medical treatment would fail derech hateva, so to speak.

So the question wasn't really spiritual vs physical, but supernatural
vs natural HP.

:> Does it make sense to cure someone's high blood pressure and not 
:> address his stress?

: Here we are asking two different questions.  My question is, given 
: that HKB"H gave us a spiritual means for healing tzaras, do we 
: expect that he would allow someone a refuah without doing the 
: necessary spiritual repairs? ...

Wholesale neis nigleh? Does even neis work that way?

WRT broken bones, you later write:
: whether the physical aspect of the disease is natural or not.  This 
: is different from, say, a broken bone, where HKB"H presumably 
: maintains a degree of hester panim and generally allows medicine to 
: perform within its normal bounds.  (Perhaps He sends, e.g., a 
: broken bone knowing that what the person needs is exactly the 
: degree of suffering that will occur _with_ a normal medical 
: intervention.)

There is a certain level of hesteir panim He always maintains, or else
the person's bechirah is compromised by neis. As earlier asked -- if it
was blatant, who would ever sin?

The Ramban's answer to the question of the fairness of hikbadti es leiv
Par'oh is that Hashem only made sure that he wasn't influenced by neis.
That being convinced via neis is the tampering with bechirah, and so
being kept immune from being convinced actually preserves bechirah.

Similarly, "ruach shetus" is insufficient to answer the question,
if tzora'as involved neis nigleh. I qwould have to conclude the Ramban
would say that supernatural tzora'as would only happen to people who see
no difference between oil burning or vinager burning, that Yad Hashem
is equally obvious in both, nothing new is proven to such a person OR
ANYONE ELSE WHO WITNESSES HIS CONDITION, and no change in belief would
be caused by nissim.

Which is why I don't believe in wholesale neis nigleh.

The spiritusomatic illness idea was that the cause is no more mysterious
than the usual the soul-brain issue. And just as someone's mental state
can push the body into an abnormal state, so can his spiritual state.
However, the abnormal state is a symptom, which would mean that --
short of miraculous intervention -- there is no reason to believe the
symptom couldn't be treated.

So, I would be surprised to learn that it actually couldn't, and therefore
more willing to ask the next ones:
If it could be treated, would it be permissable?
... And would it be advisable?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> When greeting the Queen of England, one does not say "shechalaq
> mikevodo levasar vedam" besheim umalkhus because her majesty doesn't
> make life-and-death decisions over her subjects.


Really? I don't know about constitutional monarchs in other countries, but
the metziut in the UK is that the sovereign personifies the state -- for
example criminal cases are listed as Rex/Regina v. P'loni -- and even today
when capital punishment has been abolished the state does make life/death
decisions over its subjects in some circumstances. Are there shu"tim that
address the specific case of the sovereign of the UK?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080410/433b4b5a/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 129
***************************************

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..."