Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 335

Sat, 20 Sep 2008

• 1. Re: bat mitzva "bo bayom (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Trends in Psak (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: childbirth as a time of sakana [was: bat mitzva "bo bayom"] (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. strange story (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: strange story (Gershon Dubin)
• 6. Re: strange story (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Trends in Psak (Richard Wolpoe)

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:37:55AM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: And in many communities, birthdays are celebrated (with no connection
: to the American custom).
: My daughters always like to say the following quote (attributed to Rav
: Soloveitchik):

: "Your birthday is the day that Hashem decided that the world couldn't
: go on without you".


I hadn't heard it besheim RYBS. And I'm surprised that he would say
it, it doesn't sound like RYBS's style. Too far from straight Brisk,
even for him, to speak in terms of what Hashem did rather than how we
should respond.

At my nephew's bar mitzvah, my father handed out small posters with a
*similar* sentiment by RAYK. (Did I mention this was in Lakewood?)

RAYK's idea, which I only remember vaguely, was closer to that of the
Gra. We say in Shema "asher Anokhi metzavkha hayom." Did Hashem actually
command us to perform mitzvos today (Elul 19, '768)? The meaning is that
every moment I am alive, every act that I do, I should be thinking that
I was placed there by the Creator. Hashem created the universe such that
this needs to be done. Only I can accomplish this task. It could only
be done here and now -- "today". And so I stand here and now to do this
essential duty, one which is a permanent feature of the universe.

Victor Frankel describes an attitude much like this in his book Man's
Search for Meaning. In his study of how various people managed through
the Holocaust (including himself), he found it was those who associated
meaning with their lives who faired the best. And this was the one
thing the Nazis could not rob of him. Even if all they left him was the
ability to suffer, his suffering too is a task only he could accomplish,
only at that time and place, and the universe is different than the one
it would have been had he chosen to suffer differently.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 


Among some Posekim[1], there is an attitude of "yiqov hadin es hahar".
The posek analyses the sources and rules based on his own understanding
of them. Even if his predecessors ruled differently or understood the
sources differently - ein ladayin els mah she'einav ro'os and halakhah
kebasra'i as explained by the Rema [2] (CM 25). This school considers
the autonomy of the Posek to be central whereas precedent is only
important insofar as it helps the Posek clarify the sources but carries
no weight on its own.
===================

If you listen to the R'HS shiur I recently reviewed on Hirhurim, he
clearly falls into this category.

KVCT
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.

 
 
From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 


>>Yes, childbirth was considered inherently dangerous, not because  of
anything to do with the actual process of birth but simply as a fact  of
nature, "min shmaya ka-radfu lah"....    ISTM that
the  reason this view developed was that childbed fever was such a  terrible
killer, and its cause was completely unknown; women were dying for  no
discernable reason, clearly unrelated to the actual trauma of  childbirth....
it's not the baby who's endangering her, it's the fact that
she's at  this mysterious dangerous time, being judged by  BDShM....<<


 
>>>>>
Childbed fever is a massive infection,  sepsis, and ironically this became a 
much more common cause of death  /after/ people started having babies in 
hospitals but /before/ they knew   that germs cause infection or how infection is 
spread.  So this was in  relatively recent times -- maybe 18th or 19th 
centuries.  Before that most  women gave birth at home with midwives and most of them 
did not contract  childbed fever.
 
 
There was a famous doctor, Semmelweiss, in the 19th century, who claimed  
that doctors themselves were spreading the disease from patient to patient, and  
when he started insisting that all the doctors and nurses wash their hands  
before examining patients, the infection rate and death rate went way way  down. 
 (Unfortunately other doctors were outraged that he was, in effect,  accusing 
them of causing their own patients' deaths, and they ran him out of  town.  
IIRC he ended up dying in an insane asylum -- he went crazy  from agmas nefesh 
that so many women were dying when their deaths  could be so easily prevented. 
 Too lazy to look up wiki but I think that's  the story.)
 
In any case, infection was not the only or even the most common cause of  
maternal death before the 20th century -- you're wrong about that.   Childbirth 
itself *is* dangerous without modern medicine.  Even in modern  times it is 
still somewhat dangerous -- my own neighbor lost his mother when he  was ten 
years old; she hemorrhaged at home two or three days after  giving birth.  I 
remember a similar case in the Catskills a few years ago  where a woman home alone 
in a bungalow colony bled to death a few days after  childbirth.  It can 
happen so quickly that there isn't enough time to get  help.
 
There is also something called pre-eclampsia -- again, too lazy for wiki  -- 
but I think it's a sudden sharp rise in the mother's blood pressure during  
pregnancy, and it's a medical emergency that can lead to maternal  death.
 
It is also possible for a mother to tear in truly horrifying and  disgusting 
ways, and once in a while you hear about women in primitive places in  Africa 
or Asia, without access to modern surgery, who suffer the rest of their  lives 
because of unrepaired damage caused by childbirth.  Stuff is hanging  out, 
they're in constant pain, hope that's not too graphic.
 
Of course all kinds of health conditions can be brought on or exacerbated  by 
pregnancy, even before you get to childbirth -- from varicose veins to  
diabetes to blood clots to liver problems, heart problems and  kidney problems.  
There's also such a thing as an ectopic pregnancy,  which is another 
life-threatening medical emergency.   In olden days  it would have killed the mother and 
no one would have even known what  happened.
 
Nowadays, maybe ironically, modern medicine itself can cause  problems.  My 
sister has a friend who was left a paraplegic as the result  of an epidural.  
And C-sections can be life-saving for both mother and  baby, but they are 
performed WAY too often and cause their own set of  problems, including infections 
(generally treatable) and uterine  rupture (uncommon but it happens) in 
subsequent pregnancies, and lots of  other fun stuff. 
 
So before the advent of modern medicine, childbirth /was/ intrinsically  
dangerous and it wasn't just a "mysterious dangerous time, being judged by  
BDShM."  This is the reason given why the mitzva of peru u'revu is an  obligation 
for men but not for women -- people are not obligated to risk their  lives to do 
a mitzva.  (Of course if they want to fulfill the  mitzva, men have to 
persuade women to cooperate, but that's another thread  -- see under "shiduchim."  
However, women are not obligated to marry or to  have children.)
 
As for "being judged by BDShM, it is known that people are especially  judged 
at a time of danger.  Not a "mysterious" danger but a known danger,  like 
crossing the sea or crossing the desert, or giving birth.
 
Today we live in a time when many dangers have been greatly ameliorated  by 
modern science (B'H) and of course that's why we don't bentsh gomel for  
situations that did formerly call for that bracha.  Some people think we  have lost 
some connection with HKB'H as a result -- we are less consciously  aware that 
ultimately, He is the one who brings us safely through travel,  hard times, or 
childbirth.  The scientific knowledge and  the technology we enjoy is a gift 
from Him but He's still running  the world.  We forget that even now we really 
do have to daven and not take  anything for granted.  The rare unexpected 
tragedy reminds us, but then we  forget again.
 
 


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






**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.      (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080919/718eed54/attachment-0001.htm>

-- Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
<<I would think that WRT a kohein, she would be an almanah>>

So we need to add a category to "yesomah bechayeh ha'av", i.e., almana
bechaye haba'al <g>  >>>

I vaguely recall a similar discussion about a man undergoing a heart
transplant. There is a short time that a man has no heart. Some wanted
to rule that a man without a heart (?) is considered halachic
dead and so after the operation is wife is an almanah bechaye baala

-- 
Eli Turkel

-- "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

<<I vaguely recall a similar discussion about a man undergoing a heart
transplant. There is a short time that a man has no heart. Some wanted
to rule that a man without a heart (?) is considered halachic
dead and so after the operation is wife is an almanah bechaye baala>>

No need to go so far;  anyone who suffers a cardiac arrest is clinically dead, but I've never heard of anyone putting him in a separate halachic class.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com


____________________________________________________________
Click to become a master chef, own a restaurant and make millions.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3m4pDVIKqPjiLF9W61uT2XkUMrpm1W5WaXHaQ1LaidC1Gzhf/

there is a difference between clinically dead and not having a heart.
We all know the various opinions at which point a person is considered
halachically dead and it need not be the same as clinically dead.

The original teshuvot about a lack of a heart concerned a chicken without
a heart and its effect on kashrut. I belivee it was Yaavetz who argued that
you can't have a live chicken without a heart even though it is not on the
list of terefot. Similarly a man without a heart (temporarily) would be
halachically dead. After the operation is he alive again (techiyas hameseim)?

I thought there is a teshuva of the Tzitz Eliezer on the question but
I am abroad
without my seforim

kol tuv

Eli Turkel

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com> wrote:
> -- "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <<I vaguely recall a similar discussion about a man undergoing a heart
> transplant. There is a short time that a man has no heart. Some wanted
> to rule that a man without a heart (?) is considered halachic
> dead and so after the operation is wife is an almanah bechaye baala>>
>
> No need to go so far;  anyone who suffers a cardiac arrest is clinically dead, but I've never heard of anyone putting him in a separate halachic class.
>
> Gershon
> gershon.du...@juno.com
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Become a Dental Assistant and earn up to $50/ hour. Click here.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/
> TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLq6vWeqVe4ZaGeos3xlOa8d3h9oGqUwcLje2mSzCVOqlTf/
>



-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> PS: A question for Areivim: why are the authors of 2 blogs that are
> entirely Torah writing anonymously?
>
> --- Ishim veShitos (transliterations mine) ---
>
> Friday, September 5, 2008
> Two trends in P'sak:
> Autonomy of the posek vs. the importance of precedent
>
> [Very rough draft - I really think the matter deserves a complete analysis
> - which I am not qualified to write]
>
> In my study of Halachic literature, I have often noticed that there are
> two different schools of thought among posekim.
>
> Among some Posekim[1], there is an attitude of "yiqov hadin es hahar". The
> posek analyses the sources and rules based on his own understanding of
> them. Even if his predecessors ruled differently or understood the sources
> differently - ein ladayin els mah she'einav ro'os and halakhah kebasra'i
> as explained by the Rema [2] (CM 25). This school considers the autonomy
> of the Posek to be central whereas precedent is only important insofar as
> it helps the Posek clarify the sources but carries no weight on its own.
>
> At the opposite extreme, lies those posekim who feel it necessary to cite
> and discuss every possible precedent on the issue[3]. These will rarely
> dismiss the earlier poskim based on their own reading of the sources but
> instead will insist that one must try to follow all opinions. According
> to this school, the fact that an eminent authority cites an opinion is
> itself of Halachic weight (perhaps of even greater Halachic weight then
> his own reading of the sources) and the autonomy of the Posek is limited.
>
> There are of course a variety of positions between the two extremes. I
> believe it might be instructive before examining any posek to first
> identify to which school of pesak he belongs to analyse his pesak
> accordingly.
>
> [1] The best example of this school of thought is R' Yaakov Emden who
> was fiercly independant in his pesakim (See for example this post in
> which the Yaavetz cites his father that - "Any dayan who is not willing
> to erase a seif in SA is not worthy of ruling. Mor U' Ketziah is simply
> full of examples in which the Yaavetz does just that.), then one might
> point to the Rogatchover who felt himself obligated to the Rambam only
> (note his correspondence with the SE that Marc Shapiro discusses in his
> book), and the final and most influential authority in this group is the
> Aruch Ha-Shulkhan who similarly is not afraid to argue against any of his
> predecessors if his own reading of the sources leads to a different ruling
> (See for example his ruling concerning one who skips p'sukei d'zimra if
> he need complete it after davening). R' Moshe Sternbuch in his Teshuvot
> V'Hanhagot is also roughly part of this group as he rarely cites Acahronim
> (but see his Hakdamah) but has his own highly original method of Pesak
> (see Tradition, R' Moshe Sternbuch's Halachic Novellae).
>
> [2] Y. Ta Shema has an article on the principle of Halacha K'Basrai that
> is somewhat relevant here.
>
> [3] The most important posek from this school of thought is the Mishna
> Berurah who cites every Acharon possible and considers them all obligatory
> (to some degree at least - cf. B. Brown's article in Contemporary Halacha
> on Soft-Stringency in the Mishna Berurah). A comparison - seif by seif of
> the Mishna Berurah and the Arukh HaShulkhan's stance to various issues
> would be most instructive (the new AS's with the MB on the bottom can
> give you some idea of the differences between them).
>
> I do not know if Chacham Ovadiah belongs in this category. True he is
> careful to cite alll the Acharonim on any issue but I don't know to
> what extent he considers them obligatory. Perhaps he is simply trying
> to gather all the arguments relating to the subject together. The same
> applies to R' Yosef Zechariah Stern. (Benny Brown's article on "Hachmarah"
> should also be relevant.)
>
> --- Avakesh ---
>
> See hot the methods Jibee with Chsohen Mioshpat 25 Tur and SA and al lns'ei
Keilim who ALL seem to impose an objective method or set of posqim.  Same
for SA and KSA who built virtuall Batei Dinim.

Alls consider AhS wre: the bracha al nekiyus Yadayim in which he favors
Rashba in rejecting this bracha but says "What can I do since Rosh/Tur
decided? ...."

Or IOW just becuase you don' AGREE with preecedent does not mean that one is
authorizeed to overturn it

Also [breoken record] see the BY on 2 vs 3 matzos and his reasoning. Then
see Karf hachayim and HIS reasoninng. For further reaseh see Rambam, Rosh,
GRA and the srouces THEY cite.

See  Sefer Hasheetos [or any late acaharonim] as to their use of Kayma Lan
Kerabeinu Tam tha Tam K;ikkar is mid'orrasio.

Bottom line, the most popular method of p'saq, except for some very bold
[and prehpas radical excptions] is simply concensus.

So when do you NEED okeir Harim?  Not to over-rule centuries of practice but
to balze new trails in virgin territory.  So calling one twin a rodeif
because it migh kill its sibling is a trail-blazer.

Gloing back in time and revising Halachah is simply revisionism no matter
how you slice it - or in the case of matzah how you crunch it.  You can
justify all kinds of revisionistic soconstructs, but revisions in accepted
practice are just that. and RMF was puzzled how nusach Ashkenaz got revised
into Sepharad, yet the GRA did quite a bit of it as did RYDS.  The
acceptance of Kallir, R. Mehullam of Lucca, Maharam Mirothenburg, Maharil,
Rema and literally Dozens of other precdent setters in Ashkenaz can be
mdismissed by any revisionist Okeir Hrarim who is bent in that direction to
muster contrary sources.  But, einledavar Sof.

OR as I ask rhetorically: if kitniyyos was indeed a minhag Shtus, why didn'
Hassidim and the GRA - who gnerally debunked Nsuach AShkenaz in so many
areas - not overturn THAT minhag, too!  Given it's "shtusy" status it shoudl
have been the FIRST to go!

Like ROY who is restoring Maran BY ot his former glory amongst Sephardim, I
am advocting the same for Asheknaz, simlar to what Rav Hamburger is doing -
altthoug he seems more narrowly focused on  the specific Minhag Frankfort.


But, I must concede that Basrai in Ashekanz allows for more flexiblity than
in Sepharad, so evolution is quicker there.  Think of the Reed vs. the Cedar
metahpor in Midrash.  [Or the Zen equivalnet of the bamboo vs. the Oak]  You
need SOME flexilibity and canno be overly subservient ot precedent.  But I
think that qihle questioning the past is OK, revising it is dubious and
actually supports Liberalism [slipery slope argument.].
-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for the New Year 5769
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080919/89f2a0a0/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 335
***************************************

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..."