Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 262

Mon, 21 Jul 2008

• 1. Ba'alus (was: No Right to Mezuzot at Condos) (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Ethical questions (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Kohanim in Cars in Cemeteries (Joshua Meisner)
• 4. police misdeeds and trial evidence (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Geirut curriculum (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Loving Israel while in Chutz (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 7. Re: Cohen with blood on his hands (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Women making tzitzis (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Loving Israel while in Chutz (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Women making tzitzis (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 11. Fables and Lies (jay ungar)
• 12. Re: Kohanim in Cars in Cemeteries (Micha Berger)

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> You're assuming that ba'alus means ownership. However, a
> rentor who has permission to hang a mezuzah is obligated to.
> Despite a lack of ownership. Or in the reverse, if you own
> the property but can't move the resident of the room around
> at will, you aren't obligated to hang a mezuzah.
> It would seem that ba'alus, at least WRT mezuzah, has more
> to do with the ability to control than with property. I
> would suggest this definition of ba'alus holds bekhol
> haTorah kulah, with the exception of ...

I tend to agree with this important distinction, that ba'alus is not property ownership, and has more to do with rules of control and relationship.

For a very long time, I have had major problems with the concept of owning
an eved. The mere thought of one ben adam being the property of another ben
adam is odious to me. But I was never able to explain why I was not
similarly bothered by the term "baal" when referring to a husband.

In recent weeks, I've begun to reach a conclusion similar to what RMB has
written. That ba'alus is NOT ownership is the western concept, but is more
likened to a set of responsibilities between the baal and the other. After
all, even when we do refer to ownership of an inanimate object, Bal
Tashchis does put limits on what we can do with it.

I don't have it all figured out yet, but RMB's comments are so close to my
ideas that I wanted to start a new thread to invite others to comment as
well. Thanks.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
All is not lost! Click now for professional data recovery.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3ni7flUkigrYqihQHj4IUWPtMSh5xG4UHdVb63u9UZRQdbxI/

Murder is yehareg vaal yaavor based on logic (San 74a - who says your
blood is redder).

Question 1 - based on this logic if the 3rd party says he will kill both
reuvain and shimon if reuvain won't kill shimon, does the result change?

Question 2 - how do those who understand the mishnah at the end of
horiyot as saying you save a man before a woman hold if reuvain was told
to kill sarah (how does blood red differ from saving based on who has
more mitzvot? -or why is passive vs. active different logic if end
result is same?)

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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080719/a3bf3e9f/attachment-0001.htm>

A poster on Areivim, commenting on a psak a few years ago by R' Zev Cohen
that it's assur for kohanim to travel along a certain block of W. Pratt Ave.
in Chicago because of trees that overshadow a Jewish cemetery and one side
of the street, wondered why the car would not insulate the kohen.  Another
poster suggested that perhaps the issur is only if one were walking, or if a
window was open.

According to the Rambam, Hil. TM 20:1, there are only three things that can
be matzil against tum'as ohel: Tzamid p'sil, Ohalin, and Belu'in.

Acc. to Ch. 21, Tzamid p'sil (which would be negated by an open window) only
works by k'lei cheres or, by extension, keilim that are not m'kablin tum'a
at all.  Hence, this would not work for most cars, except perhaps the ones
that are made of plastic.  The hatzalah of ohel b'soch ohel would not work
because a moving car constitutes an ohel zaruk that is not halachically
considered an ohel (11:5/6), while the hatzalah of balu'a only works for
something inside a living creature (20/5:6).

Are any of these restrictions subject to machlokes?

Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080720/a13c5dad/attachment-0001.htm>

see

http://
www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html?_r=1&;amp;hp&or
ef=slogin

about the effect of police doing things wrong on the subsequent trial evidence.

what does halacha say?

-- 
Eli Turkel

With all the discussion of geirut of late, I'm sure someone must have
access to a "curriculum" for geirut.  A friend of mine has been asked by
a LOR to work with a potential ger, but has not been able to find an
outline of what is to be covered.

Any help would be appreciated (yes, they are aware of the RCA agreement
etc.)

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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080720/718d93e6/attachment-0001.htm>

[The delay is largely due to my taking the time to carefully reread the
Iggeres Tehias Hamesim ('ITH'), to ensure the accuracy of my response.]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:16:16 -0400
Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 09:41:14PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> : > Igeres Techiyas haMeisim. Drawin on the mashal of the blind man and
> : > lame man who get together to streal some figs (Sanhedrin 91b). IIUC,
> 
> : Rambam cites that mashal?
> 
> Yes.

*He* *does* *not*

> : > he understands the yom hadin as whether or not the person has the actual
> : > ability to resurrect.
> : > 
> : > Here's a quote from ch. 4, near the beginning:
> : > > As I will explain in the current essay: Why should we not interpret these
> : > > pesuqim allegorically, as we have done with many other Biblical verses,
> : > > allegorically without their literal meaning? The reason is as follows:
> : > > The idea of techiyas hameisim, ie, that the neshamah will return to the
> : > > body after death, is described by Daniel in a way cannot be explained any
> : > > way but literally: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth
> : > > will rise, some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting
> : > > contempt." Daniel was similarly told by the mal'akh, 'Now go your way to
> : > > the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of days.'
> 
> : Rambam merely notes, as I mentioned, that these verses are
> : unambiguously literal.  He says nothing at all about *why* God will
> : perform the miracle..
> 
> The pasuq does. "Eileh lechayei olam, ve'eileh lachavafos".

I will attempt, one last time, to explain what I find so problematic
about your comments.  In the entire ITH, Rambam says *nothing at all*
of the teleology of Tehias Hamesim, or why it is a critical dogma,
other than the argument that the rejection of its possibility out of a
belief in the inviolability of the natural order is tantamount to a
rejection of miracles in general, a doctrine which is utterly
unacceptable to Judaism.  On the mere grounds of his citation of the
aforementioned verse, you wrote (in your original message in this
sub-thread) that:

> But the Rambam himself explains why: Because justice requires the soul
> reside again in a body when judged, otherwise the defendent isn't present
> as his own trial.
 
I consider the attribution of this view to Rambam to be groundless and
dubious, and the flat assertion that "the Rambam himself explains
why ...", when he says no such thing, to be unacceptable.

> ...
> : I believe that there is a great deal of discussion of what exactly the
> : Rambam meant by his formulation of the Ikkarim; see, e.g. Abarbanel,
> : Rosh Amanah, Chapter Twenty Three.  In any event, Rambam's view on the
> : significance of Tehias Ha'Mesim in particular is quite problematic,
> : since in spite of its appearance as Ikkar Thirteen and his vigorous and
> : indignant defense of his belief in it in Iggeres Tehias Ha'Mesim, his
> : reference to it in the Yad (Teshuvah 3:6) is so brief and ambiguous that
> : Gedolei Ha'Rishonim (e.g. Ra'avad ibid. 8:2, although see Kessef Mishneh
> : there) were apparently able to believe that he rejected it...
> 
> The Ra'avad isn't quite objective WRT finding reasons to attack the
> Rambam. BTW, did he have access to IThM?
> 
> Lema'aseh, I can only judge the Rambam by what I see of the Rambam, and
> he writes about techiyas hameisim at length.

He writes about it at length only after the eruption of controversy
over his view.

> -Micha

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

R' Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> I read recently that Pinchas needed the bracha of getting the Kehuna 
> back because it is assur for a Kohen Gadol to have spilt blood. Is 
> this true for all Kohanim or just the Kohen Gadol?

Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 128:35): A cohen who killed someone - even by 
accident can not duchen - even if he has done teshuva. The Rema addes 
that if he has repented there are grounds to be lenient in order not to 
prevent a person from repenting and that is the minhag.

Igros Moshe (Y.D. II 158): concening a cohen who is a soldier who killed 
during war - he is permitted to duchen

??"? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ? ???? ???

????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??????, ???? ???? ???? ????, 
??? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???"? ???? ???"? /??"? ??' 
??"?/ ?"? ?"? ???"? ?"? ??"? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? 
?"? ???? ?????? ???? ??"? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? 
????' ????? ?? ?"? ?????"? ?"? ???????? ?"?, ???? ?? ???? ????. ??"? ?"? 
????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????, 
????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????. ?????,

Abaranel (Bamidbar 25:11-18) states that the bris of shalom was needed 
because of the concern that he couldn't serve as cohen because he was a 
murderer
??????? ????? ??:??-??

?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? 
???? ????? ?' ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? 
???? ??? ????? ??? ?????. ??' ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? 
??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???? 
?' ????? ?????. ???' ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? 
????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?' 
?????? ?????? ???????' ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???. ????? ???? ????? 
????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????.

Daniel Eidensohn

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080721/7d7db498/attachment-0001.vcf>

Well, in case anyone was wondering what was done in the Old Country, 
is a picture of an older woman in Poland 1938 spinning thread into
string. The caption testifies it was for tzitzis. 

Tir'u baTov! 
 -Micha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080721/e795a431/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:19:21 -0400, Yitzhak Grossman <celejar@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> : > Igeres Techiyas haMeisim. Drawin on the mashal of the blind man and
>> : > lame man who get together to streal some figs (Sanhedrin 91b). IIUC,
>> 
>> : Rambam cites that mashal?
>> 
>> Yes.
> 
> *He* *does* *not*

I think you for correcting my memory. Knowing its habit of reading my
extrapolations back into the source text, my bet is that I recalled an
embellished version of the pasuq from Daniel. Which the Rambam does
quote at the begining of pereq 4, and is about judgment.

> I consider the attribution of this view to Rambam to be groundless and
> dubious, and the flat assertion that "the Rambam himself explains
> why ...", when he says no such thing, to be unacceptable.

Agreed. I erred. Problems of relying on a flaky memory.

Thanks again,
-Micha

--  
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
micha@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

Micha Berger wrote:
>
> Well, in case anyone was wondering what was done in the Old Country, 
> <http://www.tachna.com/jlp/75.htm> is a picture of an older woman in 
> Poland 1938 spinning thread into string. The caption testifies it was 
> for tzitzis
>

Not sure what your issue was

Shulchan Aruch permits women to make tzitzis

    ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??


???? ?
????? ????? ?"? ????, ?????: ??? ?? ??? ????? (????? ??, ??) ?????? 
?"?,  ????? ???? ??????. ???: ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ????, ???? 
????? ?? ??????. (????? ?"? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????' ?? ?"?).
There are views that are machmir
However the Mishna Berura states that the chumra is only for inserting 
and tying but not spinning the threads

???? ????? ???? ?? ?"? ?

(?) ????? ???? - ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ?"? ????:
???? ????? ???? ?? ?"? ?

(?) ?????? - ??? ?????? ????. ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? 
??? ?????:

This is also seen in Shulchan Aruch 11:1

    ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??


???? ?
 ??????, ???? ????? ????? ????. (???: ??? ??????? ???' ????? ???? ?????? 
???? ?????) (????? ?????? ??' ?"?), ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? 
?????, ??  ????? ????: ???? ?? ????? ?????; ??? ?? ??? ????? ????, ??????.

????? ???? ???? ?? ?"? * ????? ????

* ????? ???? ???? ?? ???' - ???? ??"? ???"? ?"? ????? ?????? ???? ???? 
??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????. ????? ?"? ???? ????? 
????? ???? ???"? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? 
?????? ???? ???' ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?"? ???? ????? ????? ???? 
???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??"? ????? ????? ?????? ???? [?????? 
???"? ???? ?? ??????]:




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080721/5c358a49/attachment-0001.vcf>

hi there
?i am looking for sources re the ten martyrs for a shiur i wish to give this tisha bav. any ideas? i notice you have done some reasearch
thanks
julian ungar md


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080721/f18ba8d4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:42:21AM -0400, Joshua Meisner wrote:
: According to the Rambam, Hil. TM 20:1, there are only three things that can
: be matzil against tum'as ohel: Tzamid p'sil, Ohalin, and Belu'in.
: 
: Acc. to Ch. 21, Tzamid p'sil (which would be negated by an open window) only
...

Something I saw on the blog HaProzdor (*) is that the author made
pretty much the same point (verbatum even!) and added this addendum
yesterday:
> Update, 7/20: There are numerous fascinating articles on the issue of
> kohanim in airplanes available online, including this one by R' Daniel
> Wolf of Yeshivat Har Etzion and an article in Tradition by R' JD
> Bleich (only available to subscribers). To summarize a few points: The
> Rashba paskens like the opinion on Eruvin 33b which says that an ohel
> zaruk is a valid ohel, but Rambam and Tosefos argue. The P'nei
> Yehoshua and Shevus Yaakov hold that even the opinion which says that
> it's not an ohel zaruk is only based on a rabbinical decree, so that
> there would be a basis to be lenient in a case of doubt, but there
> wouldn't seem to be any doubt to base such a leniency on. There's also
> an interesting discussion regarding whether or not the aluminum that
> comprises the bulk of most planes is m'kabel tum'a (machlokes Rashi
> and Rambam regarding whether the list of metals in this week's parsha
> is exhaustive) and, were aluminum not to be m'kabel tum'a, whether the
> steel bolts, rivets, etc. that hold together the plane (ma'amid) would
> still render it m'kabel tum'a and whether the plane's seal satisfies
> the requirements of tzamid p'sil.

(* Which is also by RJM, <g>.)


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 262
***************************************

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..."