Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 158

Thu, 06 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: some halachot of moser (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Tisha b'Av and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Kohen Gadol (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: The Gra on Aleinu (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Chana Luntz)
• 8. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: The Gra on Aleinu (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: The Gra on Aleinu (David Riceman)
• 11. Lecha Dodi (Prof. Levine)
• 12. surgery and transplants (Eli Turkel)
• 13. The Noda BeYehudah, Y'hi Ratzon, and the Baal Shem Tov (Yitzchok Levine)

On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:52:38AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >Because RYM Epstein is known to do it with "transparent design", as RRW
:>put it. If it's not patently obvious, then the AhS meant it.

: Nu, so why do you assume he's not obvious here?  It's certainly obvious
: to me.

Because, as is evidenced by the Chasam Sofer and the Minchas Yitzchaq,
what he wrote is not far from plausible. You're the only one named
in this thread who finds the pesaq in the SM"A differently, or their
conclusion illogical.

Which is why you're getting repeatedly hit for making bald assertions
about halakhah that don't fit the sources.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

 
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer _rygb@aishdas.org_ (mailto:r...@aishdas.org) 

>> When frum  Jews call non-frum or less-frum Jews "Erev Rav," or "Nazis,"
or "Amalek,"  they are engaging in MSbP. They are defining themselves and
rationalizing  anything they might be doing by dehumanizing others. <<
 
 
>>>>>
There are no frum Jews who characterize /all/ non-frum Jews as "erev rav"  
let alone "Nazis."  
Bit of a straw man you've set up there.
 
Certainly many of the Russian olim who have had some kind of semi-kosher  
gerus for the sake of Israeli citizenship are, in fact, erev rav.  In  
America, the non-Jewish wives of Jewish men, and their offspring, who are  
considered "Jews" by the Reform movement -- they are certainly erev  rav.  The 
cruel and hard-bitten policemen who beat up passing men in the  vicinity of any 
demonstration just because those passersby "resemble" the  demonstrators 
(i.e., have beards and payos) are sometimes called Nazis by their  angry 
victims.  Likewise, some of the kids who were beaten,  in Amona  and in the tragic 
Gaza expulsion, by soldiers and police -- some of them yelled  "Nazi" at 
those who beat them.   I think I have pretty well exhausted  the range of 
occasions on which frum Jews ever refer to any non-frum Jews as  "erev rav" or 
"Nazis."
 
 

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



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090806/9e8a6b0d/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Cantor Wolberg _cantorwolberg@cox.net_ (mailto:cantorwolb...@cox.net) 

>> R'  Micha wrote:  It seems to me self evident, a huge statement about   
the relative importance of chessed.

And not to allow him [to  mourn] for his own immediate family IS chessed?
Also, if he comes upon a  meis, he could demonstrate his chessed by  
summoning another  person.
Sorry, that answer is not self evident.
The only answer I could  accept is that it is a chok.  It certainly  
isn't rational in my  way of thinking and IMHO. <<

 
 
 
>>>>>
I think RMB's words about the relative  importance of "chessed" needs 
emendation -- the Torah is speaking about the  importance of a particular /kind/ 
of chessed, namely chessed shel emes, rather  than generic chessed of all 
types.  
 
The kohen gadol's relatives will be buried properly by other members  of 
Klal Yisrael whether or not he personally takes care of their burial.  A  mes 
mitzva by definition is a person who will not be buried at all if the KG  
doesn't do it himself.  The Torah is telling us that it is more important  
that a Jew be buried than that the KG avoid becoming tamei.  Why is that  "not 
rational"?  Many halachos have to do with what has priority over what,  
e.g., for what mitzvos do you have to leave off learning Torah and go do the  
mitzva.  Such orderings of priority are neither rational nor not-rational  -- 
the Torah just tells us what is important in Hashem's eyes.
 
We see from the story of the Harugei Betar that it is extremely  important 
for Jews to be brought to burial.  The chessed in the case of the  mes 
mitzva is that a person is brought to kevurah who would otherwise rot in a  
field, unburied.
 
It is a denigration of the tzelem Elokim to leave a body lying outside  
somewhere, unburied.  It is also a hardship for the neshama of that person,  
which feels great distress if the body is not buried.
 
The halacha about a KG burying a mes mitzva is mainly  hypothetical.  In 
the normal course of events, a great man like a Kohen  Gadol would never go 
anywhere without an escort of at least two men (IIANM that  is the halacha 
concerning great men, that they must always be  accompanied).  Thus he would 
never be all alone, somewhere outside of a  city, to encounter an untended 
corpse.  
 
The only possible time this halacha  of mes mitzva would even  apply would 
be in a time that was distinctly NOT normal -- maybe a time of  churban, of 
war, persecution, fleeing, running, hiding.  In wartime you  hear of such 
stories, a corpse in a field somewhere and no one to bury the  person.    
 
It would be an extremely unusual circumstance where this would  happen, 
that a kohen gadol would be all alone and would come across a corpse  somewhere 
away from a city, away from any other people.  Most likely it  never 
happened, ever in history (like the ben sorrer umoreh), and the halacha is  
actually a lesson to the rest of us about the great importance of making sure  
that a Jew is never left unburied, even in extreme circumstances, if there is  
any possible way to bury him.
 
 


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



_____________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090806/868747b8/attachment-0001.htm>

RDR:
> Is that really true? Siddur Ezor Eliyahu says that all early Ashkenazic
> siddurim lack it (and that adding it is a Lurianic custom), and Siddur
> Maharal says that the
...

Wolpoe's Law or first rule of TSBP

We often know the WHAT
Without knowing the [Correct] WHY.

Examples abound

A. Maharil says a persons should not be Sandek twice for same family.
Maharil claims Midrash is source

Yet Bei'ur HaGra claims R Yehudah Hachasid is the correct source. (I
can get mar'eh meqomos if necessary.

B. Ashkenazim duchan only on Yom Tov. Rema asserts Simcha. As the
underlying dynamic
I dismiss this reason. Why?
One svara
RH + YK - Yes
Shabbos hol hamoed - NO?  And it's due to simcha?  Hmmm

NB: I do NOT dismiss the minhag. I just presume the Rema was speculating
the WHY but was sure of the WHAT. So I DO respect his P'saq but dismiss
his rationale as a guess.

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


Qiddush in shul for or'chim is not necessarily THE definitive reason.
This indeed is the teirutz given. - but for Sh'muel's sheeta only. And
there are reasons given by pos'qim aside from or'chim (EG refuah for
the legs)

D. Even the common minhag of waiting 6 hours after meat before dairy
has a machloqes between Rambam and Rashba as to the WHY - even though
they agree on the WHAT.

*******************

That is why I oppose
some halachic revisions because they pre-suppose we have a definitive WHY.
Support for my svara can be founde EG in AhS on Halei Aku"m.

##############

HOW does it come about that we can know the WHAT w/o knowing the WHY?

My take? Persecutions and migrations kept the mimetic practice in place
but lost the underlying rationales.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
>>And  then, if you are prepared to recognise that there are those who do 
think
that  this change of women marrying later is indeed forced upon us by
economic  necessity, if nothing else, how do you provide the spiritual
nourishment that  may have traditionally been available via marriage, 
without
a marriage? I get  back to the question of ase l'cha rav.  For a woman who 
is
yet to marry,  do you hold that aseh l'cha rav, is a positive mitzvah?  If
so, how  should it be achieved, given the modern hurdles?  Or is the  
correct
price to pay that a woman needs to put her spiritual growth (not to  mention
halachic observance) on hold during her teenage and twenties (if  not
thirties) while she pursues her secular studies?  If not, how is  growth to
be achieved given that the traditional supports available to her  
grandmother
in her bas melech penima role are not available to her during  this period? 
 <<

>>>>>
I don't know what  spiritual supports were available to Grandma that are 
not available to women  today, except husbands, of course.  But most husbands 
aren't very good at  that sort of thing.  In many homes the wife is the 
stronger partner,  spiritually speaking, and it has ever been thus.  

 


You have spoken of "asei lecha rav" before and I recall you connected that  
idea with the phenomenon of girls in seminary developing crushes on their  
teachers.  It seems that you see the relationship with a rav as having a  
strong emotional component, a level of emotional intimacy, that is not very  
appropriate between a man and a woman outside of marriage.  In this case I  
don't know what difference it makes whether a woman is married or single.   
But I disagree with your premise.  Many single young women (and of course  
many married women) used to talk to my father about their problems and  
questions, halachic or hashkafic.  My mother might come in and offer tea  and 
cookies, she would usually be somewhere around.  Sometimes the young  woman 
would confide in my mother rather than in my father, not unusual for a  
sympathetic rebetzen.  
 
"Asei lecha rav" can be anything from asking shailos about your pots  and 
pans to discussing serious life-goal issues.  It is not the case  that for 
the typical married woman, her husband is her rav, as you seem to  think.  I 
am having trouble wrapping my head around your understanding of  "aseh lecha 
rav" that would make it inappropriate for a woman to have a male  rav, or 
that would make any distinction between a single and a married woman in  her 
relationship with a rav.  (PS On a personal note I must confess that  the 
phenomenon of a girl having a crush on her teacher is not unknown to me, and  
it certainly adds a delightful piquancy to one's schooldays, but I don't see 
the  "crush" as having anything to do with choosing a rav.  Well I guess if  
a girl does have a crush on a teacher, it would be prudent to choose a 
different  person as her rav.)


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



_____________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090806/5c8c7169/attachment-0001.htm>

RTK writes:

> I don't know what spiritual supports were available to 
> Grandma that are not available to women today, except 
> husbands, of course.  But most husbands aren't very good at 
> that sort of thing.  In many homes the wife is the stronger 
> partner, spiritually speaking, and it has ever been thus.  

As I have indicated, I think there were a lot of spiritual and emotional
supports available to grandmother that are not so easily available today.
One I spoke about at the beginning was the extended community, centered on
the chazer of the home, with multiple families of different generations.  I
suggested that this was most closely replicated in the appartment blocks
found (particularly) within charedi circles in Israel, where the families
are in and out of each others's appartments, the children of all ages play
together etc.

In a more atomised society, the nuclear family takes on a more primary role
than it ever did, which forces husbands to play a much greater part in
providing what used to be provided by the community.  I agree that husbands
often wilt under the level of obligation that that places, but they are
unquestionably better than nothing, and without them, a girl is clearly
completely and utterly on their own.

>  
> You have spoken of "asei lecha rav" before and I recall you 
> connected that idea with the phenomenon of girls in seminary 
> developing crushes on their teachers.  It seems that you see 
> the relationship with a rav as having a strong emotional 
> component, a level of emotional intimacy, that is not very 
> appropriate between a man and a woman outside of marriage.  
> In this case I don't know what difference it makes whether a 
> woman is married or single.

The difference is, not that I am expecting the husband to be the Rav, but
that the husband will have access to a Rav, and that he will operate as a
form of mediator.  I certainly think this has always been the way that
married families have interacted with a Rav.  While women of the family may
sometimes ask and speak to the Rav directly, it is always as a part of the
family unit.  I personally think that any man would quite correctly feel
somewhat cut out of things (and it is probably a sign of things not going so
well within the marriage) if his wife had a direct relationship with a Rav
to which he was not really privy.  To my mind, almost the only scenario I
can see where this would happen would be if there are marital problems, and
the Rav is in fact acting as a form of marital counsellor.  I am not saying
that is not a valuable role for a Rav to have - but what it demonstrates is
that the family unit is already not functioning as it should, and the role
of the Rav is, ideally, to bring the two of them to a state where it is not
necessary. 


  But I disagree with your 
> premise.  Many single young women (and of course many married 
> women) used to talk to my father about their problems and 
> questions, halachic or hashkafic.  My mother might come in 
> and offer tea and cookies, she would usually be somewhere 
> around.  Sometimes the young woman would confide in my mother 
> rather than in my father, not unusual for a sympathetic rebetzen.  
>  
> "Asei lecha rav" can be anything from asking shailos about 
> your pots and pans to discussing serious life-goal issues.  

Well, the asking shialos about your pots and pans can, at a pinch, be done
to anybody and various anybodies (I did that in my single days, whoever
happened to be around with smicha who was known to answer these kind of
shialas would do, but I wouldn't call any of the people I asked these
questions to my rav).  If you want to develop real spiritual growth of the
type that RMB is keen on, however, it is generally considered ideal to find
somebody who is better able to help guide you with the haskafic type issues
as well - and the pots and pans questions come up in the course of that
wider relationship.

> It is not the case that for the typical married woman, her 
> husband is her rav, as you seem to think.  I am having 
> trouble wrapping my head around your understanding of "aseh 
> lecha rav" that would make it inappropriate for a woman to 
> have a male rav, or that would make any distinction between a 
> single and a married woman in her relationship with a rav. 

As I mentioned, I am not at all assuming that her husband is her rav.  But I
would also see a marriage as somewhat disfunctional if a woman was having
serious life goal or hashkafic issues that her husband was completely cut
out of, and she was running off to a rav and discussing them at length with
him, without the husband's knowledge, awareness or involvement.  My
assumption is that with a marriage that is working, the husband would be on
some level involved in the conversations with the rav - there would be three
parties to the conversation, not two, and so, despite the fact that the
issues might relate to her life goals or her haskafic issues, they would
fundamentally be about the life goals or hashkafic issues of the family unit
as a whole, even if felt more strongly by one part of it.  And I would
therefore expect the rav would relate to the questions on that basis. 

For a single girl, there is (obviously) no husband involved - and so except
for the case where the girl is trying to work out whether somebody is the
right person to marry, the relationship is direct, and there is not third
leg to the triangle.  That makes the dynamics of the relationship very very
different.  I am not saying that some people do not manage to correctly
negotiate that relationship, but that it is, has to be, very different.
 
> (PS On a personal note I must confess that the phenomenon of 
> a girl having a crush on her teacher is not unknown to me, 
> and it certainly adds a delightful piquancy to one's 
> schooldays, but I don't see the "crush" as having anything to 
> do with choosing a rav.  Well I guess if a girl does have a 
> crush on a teacher, it would be prudent to choose a different 
> person as her rav.)

Part of what fuels that crush, IMHO, along with the pure attraction is the
heady mixture of idealism and hashkafic attractiveness.   The girl is drawn
to the rav precisely because his world view is so attractive - making aseh
l'cha rav to somebody else rather difficult.  I am not talking about asking
pots and pans shialas, but about life goal and hashkafic questions.  That is
precisely the kind of thing the girl desperately wants to ask this
particular rav.  I am not saying he is wrong to answer her (it is probably a
fair assumption that there is nobody else - and mostly she will grow up and
move on to a real husband, not a fantasy one), but there is something quite
problematic about the dynamic - and I wanted to point out that it is a new
dynamic, a product of modernity, not something that Tosphos or the gemora
would necessarily have ever encountered.

>  
> --Toby Katz

Regards

Chana

RAM writes 

> I totally agree that these concepts are ones which are 
> "extremely open to abuse". But this does not mean that the 
> concept is inherently wrong or bad, only that it is easily 
> misused. We need to distinguish betwen proper uses of the 
> concept, and improper uses of it.

I agree, and that is why we have now had a thread extending for a number of
weeks, in which I have been actively participating, and this is the first
time I have raised the issue.  In addition, I clearly stated in my post two
caviates "In the interests of fully covering the topic as set out in the
heading (ie Tzenius and gender roles), and especially given the discussion
on domestic abuse taking place on Areivim," and  "That does not mean that
such ideas and concepts should not be discussed - but as part of the
grappling that I am asking RMB to do, he probably needs to consider the way
that concepts can, and perhaps are (depending on the extent to which
anecdotal evidence is to be regarded as real evidence) misused."

> In the case here, I'd like to focus on RCL's example, in 
> which she used the word "lecturing".
> 
> My teachers taught me many things about relationships in 
> general and marriage in particular. One of those lessons was 
> the importance of focusing on one's OWN obligations and 
> responsibilities, and not so much (if at all) on the other 
> person's obligations and responsibilities. In short, for a 
> husband to "lecture" his wife on "the virtues of tznius or 
> bas melech penima" is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> I note that RCL did not write of a husband lecturing his 
> wife, but of a generic "man lecturing women". These lectures 
> can come from her father, or from her teachers (or, perhaps 
> best, from her mother or friends). But when they come from 
> her husband, I think that is where the abuse begins.

My reference to a generic "man lecturing women" was wider than that, I'm
afraid.  I agree totally with this idea about focussing on one's OWN
obligations and responsibilities.  The issue that arises, however, is often
the kind of husband who may perhaps have tendencies towards abuse, may well
also not always be clever enough to think up these things himself.  Nor will
he necessarily have the authority to speak them solely by himself. He will
seek to source them and buttress from others, particularly authoratative
others.  The man lecturing women is, of course RHS and RMB himself.  Because
while there is an attempt to argue, in these theses, that these concepts
apply to men as well, because of the "but men are commanded", part of it,
the message that is very easily taken is fundamentally about men lecturing
women.

And I agree with RMB's example about OCD and the fact that Torah observance
itself is open to abuse.

That is precisely why I said that "he probably needs to consider the way
that concepts can, and perhaps are (depending on the extent to which
anecdotal evidence is to be regarded as real evidence) misused".  A lot of
how serious one considers this depends on how prevalent one thinks domestic
abuse is in the frum environment, and how much these ideas are really being
used to buttress any such domestic abuse that exists.  That inter alia,
involves talking to professionals.  And on the other hand, one has to weigh
how fundamental one regards the concepts to Yahadus.  If the existance of
abuse is small, and the concept if fundamental, then one is clearly going to
take a different view than if the existance of the abuse is large and the
concept is arguably not that fundamental at all.

> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana

And addendum to my previous post (RMB, if this reaches you before you send
out the one below, just add this paragraph to the bottom of the previous
post before my signature, as I meant to go on to say this):

But even if, indeed, the existance of abuse is small, if the perception is
that the existance of the abuse is large, then talking on the subject will
be futile to those who believe that the likelihood of abuse is large, until
they can be convinced otherwise.  That is why I also said, in my earlier
post "RMB is hence likely to find, among many (perhaps more often women, but
not always) a knee jerk negative reaction when they see a man lecturing
women of the virtues of tznius or bas melech penima."  Knee jerk reaction is
not necessarily a positive term.  On the other hand, as we know, tochacha is
generally not recommended if it will fall on deaf ears.  If the reason for
the deaf ears is a belief, even if a mistaken belief, that dwelling on such
subjects will lead (at least in the current generation) to domestic abuse -
then surely those who are giving the tochacha needs to at the very least be
cognisant of that fact, and take that into account otherwise the tochecha
will undoubtedly be uneffective.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chana Luntz [mailto:ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk] 
> Sent: 06 August 2009 12:15
> To: 'avo...@lists.aishdas.org'
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> 
> 
> RAM writes 
> 
> > I totally agree that these concepts are ones which are
> > "extremely open to abuse". But this does not mean that the 
> > concept is inherently wrong or bad, only that it is easily 
> > misused. We need to distinguish betwen proper uses of the 
> > concept, and improper uses of it.
> 
> I agree, and that is why we have now had a thread extending 
> for a number of weeks, in which I have been actively 
> participating, and this is the first time I have raised the 
> issue.  In addition, I clearly stated in my post two caviates 
> "In the interests of fully covering the topic as set out in 
> the heading (ie Tzenius and gender roles), and especially 
> given the discussion on domestic abuse taking place on 
> Areivim," and  "That does not mean that such ideas and 
> concepts should not be discussed - but as part of the 
> grappling that I am asking RMB to do, he probably needs to 
> consider the way that concepts can, and perhaps are 
> (depending on the extent to which anecdotal evidence is to be 
> regarded as real evidence) misused."
> 
> > In the case here, I'd like to focus on RCL's example, in
> > which she used the word "lecturing".
> > 
> > My teachers taught me many things about relationships in
> > general and marriage in particular. One of those lessons was 
> > the importance of focusing on one's OWN obligations and 
> > responsibilities, and not so much (if at all) on the other 
> > person's obligations and responsibilities. In short, for a 
> > husband to "lecture" his wife on "the virtues of tznius or 
> > bas melech penima" is a recipe for disaster.
> > 
> > I note that RCL did not write of a husband lecturing his
> > wife, but of a generic "man lecturing women". These lectures 
> > can come from her father, or from her teachers (or, perhaps 
> > best, from her mother or friends). But when they come from 
> > her husband, I think that is where the abuse begins.
> 
> My reference to a generic "man lecturing women" was wider 
> than that, I'm afraid.  I agree totally with this idea about 
> focussing on one's OWN obligations and responsibilities.  The 
> issue that arises, however, is often the kind of husband who 
> may perhaps have tendencies towards abuse, may well also not 
> always be clever enough to think up these things himself.  
> Nor will he necessarily have the authority to speak them 
> solely by himself. He will seek to source them and buttress 
> from others, particularly authoratative others.  The man 
> lecturing women is, of course RHS and RMB himself.  Because 
> while there is an attempt to argue, in these theses, that 
> these concepts apply to men as well, because of the "but men 
> are commanded", part of it, the message that is very easily 
> taken is fundamentally about men lecturing women.
> 
> And I agree with RMB's example about OCD and the fact that 
> Torah observance itself is open to abuse.
> 
> That is precisely why I said that "he probably needs to 
> consider the way that concepts can, and perhaps are 
> (depending on the extent to which anecdotal evidence is to be 
> regarded as real evidence) misused".  A lot of how serious 
> one considers this depends on how prevalent one thinks 
> domestic abuse is in the frum environment, and how much these 
> ideas are really being used to buttress any such domestic 
> abuse that exists.  That inter alia, involves talking to 
> professionals.  And on the other hand, one has to weigh how 
> fundamental one regards the concepts to Yahadus.  If the 
> existance of abuse is small, and the concept if fundamental, 
> then one is clearly going to take a different view than if 
> the existance of the abuse is large and the concept is 
> arguably not that fundamental at all.


> > Akiva Miller
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chana
> 

 


Wolpoe's Law or first rule of TSBP

We often know the WHAT
Without knowing the [Correct] WHY.
=================================
Interesting that you only go back to poskim, Imeho this is muchrach in the
gemara as well. The problem is that it makes it difficult to extrapolate
from the data base if you don't have confidence that you understand what
function underlies the already observed data. (see today's NYT on the hot
job for the future-statisticians)
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.

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> RDR:
>   
>> Is that really true? Siddur Ezor Eliyahu says that all early Ashkenazic
>> siddurim lack it (and that adding it is a Lurianic custom), and Siddur
>> Maharal says that the
>>     
> ...
>
> Wolpoe's Law or first rule of TSBP
>
> We often know the WHAT
> Without knowing the [Correct] WHY.
>   
RMB made an assertion about WHEN, and it is that I was querying.

David Riceman

Can anyone supply any information as to how Lecha Dodi became almost 
universally adopted a part of the Friday night davening?  Surely 
there must have been opposition to this "new innovation" at the time 
when it was introduced. Can anyone steer me to some historical 
sources. or something on the Internet?

Many thanks in advance.

Yitzchok Levine 

Various people have suggested their own ideas of when someone can do surgery
including donation of kidneys and cosmetic surgery

Instead of throwing ideas I will quote some poskin/meforshim.
See especially
The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society
Sale or Donation of Human Organs
by R Alfred Cohen col 52
Cosmetic Surgery in Halacha
by Dan Geisler vol 48

1. Ibn Ezra forbids all internal surgery. Thus any donation of organ parts
is forbidden

2. Gemara Baba 85a Kamma lerans that a doctor has the right to treat a patient
Rashi and Tosafot learn that without the pasuk we would think that this is
G-d's punishment and so doctors can't intervene

This implies that elective surgery is not allowed.
The Tzitz Eliezer explicitly forbids cosmetic surgery since a person is changing
ones G-d given appearance  RSZA says  this doesnt apply to someone in
an accident
who is disfigured.

3. Those who disagree with ashi and Tosafot learn that the problem is
chovel which the
pasuk overcomes for medical reasons.

Is injections chovel ? RSZA says no while R. Tzvi Pesach Frank says
yes. R Abrasky
says it is chovel only if blood is removed. This has implications for hilchot
shabbat, treating one's parents and also elective procedure (eg Botox treatment)

4. Cosmetic  surgery - Tzitz Eliezer forbids it. Chelkat Yaakov allows
it for pschological
disorders only RMF is most permissive and allows it for a woman
looking for a shidduch.
This is based on Rambam who defines chovel as "bizayon or
nitzayon" (2 girsas)
and so only destructive chovel is forbidden and not constructive chovel.
However even RMF seems to define constructive as based on mitzvot or
general tzibbur consent not each individual person decides. Thus, if
one wants some
surgery for an unusual piece of jewelry it would seem even RMF forbids it.

5. For donations of organs after death RMF rules
a - family of the deceased have no say in the matter
b - the corpse and all parts are forbidden for all benefit
c - It is nivul hamet to not bury all body parts

6. RSZA was asked by R. Abraham (Nishmat Avraham) whether one can sell or donate
body parts to be used for research after his death. The reply was
"G-d forbid that a person should sell or give away his body" !!!!

7. Malbim on prohibition to remarry one's wife after she has been
remarried (based on Sifre)
and divorced" . To prevent a case where a rich man offers money
to a poor man
to divorce his wife which he will marry under the understanding that later
the rich man will divorce the woman and she can return to her poor husband.
Of course after living with the rich man she is no longer interested in the poor
ex-husband. This can lead to jealosy and then to bloodshed

Thus the Torah is teaching us that it is despicable for a rich man to coerce a
poor man with an offer of money to do activities he wouldn't want to
do otherwise

8. An interesting side question is whether a person who has been paid for
a mitzvah gets reward for that mitzvah. Seems to be an argument between RMF
and RSZA whether a doctor who is not religious gets a mitzva for saving lives



-- 
Eli Turkel

R. Baruch HaLevi Epstein, the author of the Torah Temimah, also wrote 
Mekor Baruch. In this book he recalled many events of the past. Part 
of Mekor Baruch was translated and published under the title My Uncle 
the Netziv. This book caused considerable controversy shortly after 
it appeared.

The book Recollections is a translation of another part of Mekor 
Baruch. On page 156 he writes

"The remark was characteristic of the Noda BeYehudah, who never 
passed up an opportunity to express his objection to chassidim and 
chassidus. The following story is related by his student, the Gaon 
Rav Eliezer Palklash, the Chief Rabbi of Prague, in his work She'los 
U'Teshuvos Teshuvah MeAhavah, vol. 1, no.1:

It once happened that a person came to recite a
blessing over the esrog of the Noda Be Yehudah, and he
began to recite the prayer Y'hi Ratzon printed in the
machzorim and in the work Likutei Tzvi, which is based
on various chassidic concepts of different combinations
of the letters of God's Name and other ideas. When the
Noda BeYehudah heard this, he was outraged and said
angrily, "I refuse to give my esrog to one who recites the
Y'hi Ratzon," and he did not give him the esrog.

It appears to me, however, that the Noda BeYehudah was not just 
reacting in anger to the kabbalistic nature of this prayer and its 
allusions, but, rather, there was an instructive purpose in his 
action; he was trying to teach a special lesson fundamental to Jewish law."

I have posted the rest of what the Torah Temimah wrote about this 
subject as well as an incident involving the Baal Shem Tov and the 
Noda BeYehudah at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/noda_beyehudah.pdf

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090806/b9a6bf77/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 158
***************************************

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..."