Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 10

Wed, 19 Jan 2011

• 1. Re: R Chiya Raba (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Yayin mevushal (martin brody)
• 3. Re: Yayin mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 4. Yayin Mevushal - Well, Almost (Meir Rabi)
• 5. Re: Yayin mevushal (Dorron Katzin)
• 6. Re: Yayin mevushal (Harry Maryles)
• 7. Re: Brain Death (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Brain Death (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 9. R Chiya Rabba (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Brain Death (David Riceman)
• 11. Tu B'Shevat - Pri Eitz Hadar . yemach shmo on a Jew (M Cohen)
• 12. Re: Tu B'Shevat - Pri Eitz Hadar . yemach shmo on a Jew (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Brain Death (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 14. Re: Fwd: worst aveirah (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Brain Death (Yitzchak Schaffer)

R' Micha Berger asked:

> As I understand him, the CI (YD, Hilkhos Tereifos 5:3; Yevamos
> 57:3) is saying there was an exact time of transition from the
> era of Torah to the era of Geulah. That's different than saying
> that time was the year 4000 AM on the nose. Just as the year
> 2000 AM (in a chronology the CI would accept) doesn't mark any
> notable event I'm aware of -- Migdal Bavel was 1996 AM, Noach
> dies in 2006, Beris Bein haBesarim is 2018.

According to Gemara Avoda Zara 9a, in answering this very question, the year 2000 marked the pasuk "v'es hanefesh asher asu b'charan." (Bereshis 12:5)

Or, as phrased by Rav Aryeh Kaplan's "The Torah Anthology" on that pasuk
(vol 2, pg 22), referring to Avram, who had been born in 1948: "When he was
52 years old, he began spreading his doctrine in the world."

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Home Refinance 3.8% FIXED
No Hidden Fees, Easy Approvals & Better Terms-Free Quotes-3.9% APR!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d3356afd7d9c36232st06vuc

> >  As I understand it, according to many authorities, if a non-Jew
> >  handles yayin mevushal this does not render it non-Kosher.
>
>  That is according to all authorities.

This is not quite correct. There is an opinion(and I'll try to find the
source) that that if the cooking process does not actually affect the
wine/grape juice, making it noticeably inferior, it cannot be touched by a
non-Jew. According to this opinion it probably applies to grape juice, which
cannot be produced w/o cooking/pasteurizing, and many other flash cooked
wines.
Cheers

Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20110116/700e85d8/attachment.html>

On 16/01/2011 2:25 PM, martin brody wrote:
>>>  As I understand it, according to many authorities, if a non-Jew
>>>  handles yayin mevushal this does not render it non-Kosher.

>>  That is according to all authorities.
  
> This is not quite correct. There is an opinion(and I'll try to find the
> source) that that if the cooking process does not actually affect the
> wine/grape juice, making it noticeably inferior, it cannot be touched
> by a non-Jew.

How is that in any way relevant?  How does it make what I wrote "not quite
correct"?   I stand by my words: There are *no* authorities who forbid
yayin mevushal that has been handled by a nochri.  How to determine when
wine is mevushal is a completely different matter.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

The OU certified and I believe still do certify wines with the vague
message, Dino KeDin Yayin Mevushal.
Is it or is it not? If you consider pasteurisation adequate, then it is. So,
you want people to know you are relying on this process, then say so,
Mevushal A"Y Pistoor. And the temp can also be disclosed.
In spite of my best efforts I have not succeeded in unraveling the mystery
of what it actually means.
Any suggestions? I think I may have broached this matter on Avodah some time
ago


Best,

Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110117/a820c438/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 13:25, martin brody <martinlbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  As I understand it, according to many authorities, if a non-Jew
>>>  handles yayin mevushal this does not render it non-Kosher.

>>  That is according to all authorities.

> This is not quite correct. There is an opinion(and I'll try to find the
> source) that that if the cooking process does not actually affect the
> wine/grape juice, making it noticeably inferior, it cannot be touched by a
> non-Jew. According to this opinion it probably applies to grape juice, which
> cannot be produced w/o cooking/pasteurizing, and many other flash cooked
> wines.

If that is the Halacha, there is no point to Yayin Mevushal as currently
done.

Dorron Katzin

--- On Sun, 1/16/11, Dorron Katzin <dakat...@gmail.com> wrote:



> There is an opinion(and I'll try to find the
> source) that that if the cooking process does not actually affect the
> wine/grape juice, making it noticeably inferior, it cannot be touched by a
> non-Jew. According to this opinion it probably applies to grape juice, which
> cannot be produced w/o cooking/pasteurizing, and many other flash cooked
> wines.

If that is the Halacha, there is no point to Yayin Mevushal as currently
done.
----------------------------------------
?
I'm pretty sure this is R' Elyashiv's shitah
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110116/11bb1ae3/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Natan Slifkin and R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, in their discussion of the
halachic view on brain death, seem to be disagreeing about the roles of the
heart, the kidneys, the mind, and similar topics. It seems to me that this
discussion is fundamentally flawed. What we need is a clear definition of
"life", and I did not notice anyone who has given a good definition of
that.

Actually, a definition of "life" is irrelevant. What we need is definitions
"chayim" and "mavess". "Life" may or may not be the same thing as "chayim".
If a person is clearly "alive", that does not prove that he is "chai". We
presume these words to mean the same thing, but I think I can prove that
they are not:

Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 2, Siman 174, bottom right paragraph on page 288:

<<< If a person's head was cut off, even though the head and body
are spasming, he has the din of 'meis mamash'. And even if there would be a
way to connect the head to the body so that he would live, there is no
chiyuv to do so even during the week, because there is no chiyuv to revive
the dead, so on Shabbos it would be assur. See Bava Basra 74, where R'
Yehuda says that a certain jewel exists which can revive the dead, even
those who have been decapitated, but HaShem hid it from us. It is pashut
that even if HaShem would make it available to someone, he would not be
chayav to revive the dead. The Torah only obligated us to heal the sick,
and even to be mechalel Shabbos, but not to revive the dead. >>>

In other words: Suppose we would have the ability to reattach a severed
head and bring that person back to full health. One might think that his
subsequent health is conclusive proof that he was still alive even while
his head was unattached. But Rav Moshe says that he was "meis mamash", and
that it is ASSUR to be mechalel Shabbos to reattach the head.

Perhaps other poskim are willing to define "chayim" in terms of "life", but Rav Moshe (it seems to me) is not.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d338cd968486c3db9ast06vuc

But is it not true that the classification of mes mamash comes only because
it's humanly impossible to save him, supernatural jewels notwithstanding?
Perhaps if it were standard medicine to do this, it would be a chiyuv.

You hit the point IMO: we need a definition of living human being for the
purposes of retzichah/donation. I think that RNS's main point is that we
shouldn't assume that Chazal's practical definition is an absolute
definition, rather that it was based upon the lifesaving possibilities of
the time, and that we should adjust the practical definition for our time.
Whether that's true is out of my grasp.

--
Yitzchak Schaffer

On Jan 17, 2011, at 0:26, "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:

> If a person's head was cut off, even though the head and body are
> spasming, he has the din of 'meis mamash'. And even if there would be
> a way to connect the head to the body so that he would live, there is
> no chiyuv to do so even during the week, because there is no chiyuv to
> revive the dead, so on Shabbos it would be assur.

<<As I understand him, the CI (YD, Hilkhos Tereifos 5:3; Yevamos 57:3)
is saying there was an exact time of transition from the era of Torah
to the era of Geulah. That's different than saying that time was the
year 4000 AM on the nose. Just as the year 2000 AM (in a chronology the
CI would accept) doesn't mark any notable event I'm aware of -- Migdal
Bavel was 1996 AM, Noach dies in 2006, Beris Bein haBesarim is 2018.>>

I just have trouble with the concept that R Chiya could disagree with Rebbe
one day but not the following day.258)

Reminds of the discussion about the halachic dateline where most poskim say
we don't take 90 degrees (according to that shita) from Jerusalem because
that would
imply that two halves of a house are in different days. Rather we extend the
time
zone to the end of the land mass.

On a slightly different matter I looked again  Hilchatit Refuit by Dr.
Steinberg (vol 2 p258)
He brings the gemara  Bechorot44b and Yevamot 75b that the male has 2 parts
for semen and urine while modern anatomy claims they combine. CI (Even
Haezer 15:7) claims
that nishtane hateva while in Peer Hador vol 4 p142 it seems that CI held
this
was a physical change and not just a halachic rationalization.

Note that in other cases various rishonim already use nishtane hateva to
change halachot from the days of chazal


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110117/afe61ef1/attachment-0001.htm>

RHM, citing RYGB:

<<The issue is how to define the moment of death.>>

I want to quibble a little.  Hazal were not defining the moment of 
death; they were clarifying that lack of a heart beat establishes a 
hazakah of death.  As proof I'll point out that no one permits murdering 
people who have had heart transplants.

But hazakot are not exclusive, and are facts of nature or sociology, not 
decrees of Hazal.  So the question about brain death is whether it 
establishes a hazakah.  I don't know enough about medicine to even 
approach the question, but I'll add a couple of questions anyway.

We can't actually observe cessation of brain activity, we can only 
define "brain death" using complex machinery.  Are there any examples in 
Hazal of hazakot which can be established only through machinery?

I noticed that wikipedia defines brain death as "irreversible cessation 
...."  Is it possible to measure irreversibility, or do you need a 
second hazakah for that? Are there other examples of serially coupled 
hazakot?

Incidentally, to support RYGB's main point, see chapter 6 of Sa'adyah's 
commentary on Sefer Yetzirah (R. Kafih's edition; the one printed in the 
standard edition is a different book, apparently by someone else).

David Riceman

The reliablility of the book Chemdat Yamim has been discussed on Avodah
before.
I was unaware that the sefer Pri Eitz Hadar is of the same source (see
below)
Is this well known? (true?)

a secondary question - 
does the velt apply the phrase 'yemach shmo' to a Jew
as he uses it below wrt shabbatai zvi? 

Mordechai Cohen


Tu BiShvat seder controversy
Rabbi Yoel Lieberman

Question:
Many practice the Tu BiShvat seder by following, reading, and singing from
the 
kaballistic books Chemdat Yamim and Pri Etz Hadar. Unfortunately, these
works 
have been proven to come from followers of the false messiah shabbatai zvi,
may 
his name be wiped out.

Chemdat Yamim was written by a shabbatian follower (and uses notarikons of 
Nathan of Gaza in the piyyutim), while Pri Etz Hadar was written by Nathan
of 
Gaza, the false "prophet" for shabbatai who built the movement. Why then are

these works still used? Are there any grounds in benefiting from them?

Answer:
Rav Ya'akov Emden zt"l disqualifies the book Chemdat Hayamim as being
written by 
Nathan of Gaza. Without getting into the whole debate of the validity of
this 
claim whether right or wrong, somewhat among Ashkenazim Rav Ya'akov Emden's 
attitude has been the prevalent one towards the book. However, Rav Moshe
Tzuriel 
Shlita wrote a long article on the subject and showed eighty "Gedolei
Yisrael" 
who either praised the book or quoted from it. Rabbi Chaim Palagi,
(1788-1868, 
Izmir ,Turkey) for example, gave great acclaim to the book. 

The book Pri Etz Hadar is an excerpt from Chemdat Hayamim. So we are back to

square one in our attitude to this book as well.
Many years ago I personally asked Rav Mordechai Eliyahu Shlita (May Hashem
grant 
him a refu'ah Shleima) about this issue and he told me that among Sfaradim
the 
book, Chemdat Hayamim has not been disqualified. In halacha sheets with
rulings 
of Rav Mordechai Eliyahu Shlita , he says about he eve of Tu b'shvat: "There
are 
those who have the custom of reading from the book 'Pri Etz Hadar'. The book
Pri 
Etz Hadar also has been reprinted by Rabbis today. 

If you are in a Yeshiva, then you should consult your Rabbi as what to do.
If 
you are unsure you may refrain from using these books without vilifying
them.

On 18/01/2011 11:01 AM, M Cohen wrote:

> a secondary question -
> does the velt apply the phrase 'yemach shmo' to a Jew
> as he uses it below wrt shabbatai zvi?

The previous LR, in a letter that has been published several times,
refers to Moses Mendelsohn as "yimach shmo".


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 2011-01-18 10:48, David Riceman wrote:
> I want to quibble a little. Hazal were not defining the moment of death;
> they were clarifying that lack of a heart beat establishes a hazakah of
> death. As proof I'll point out that no one permits murdering people who
> have had heart transplants.
>

I have been following this debate, and this was the first time this 
point penetrated my mind. It seems compelling to me. If we're going to 
establish new chazakos, however, we now have a need to know what death 
is per se. What is death, that which we are establishing a chazakah on?

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:40:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Piquach nefesh does not inherently override Shabbos. Shabbos overrides
:> Shabbos, and in the case of someone who isn't / doesn't have to be
:> shomer Shabbos, it's other mitzvos that override Shabbos (mishum eivah

: 1. Do you have a source that pikuach nefesh overrides shabbat for a
: non-shomer shabbat only because of eivah/darchei shalom.

: If so it should have practical applications such as if shabbat is
: hutra or dechuya
: and other differences between a deoraisa and derabban

The whole sugya from which we get hutera vs dechuya (Yoma 84b) is based
on the notion that the usal "vechai bahem" isn't sufficient for Shabbos,
which was my first point. 85a-b, where the topic shifts to *safeiq*
piquach nefesh, lists Shabbos-specific derashos, then Shemuel gives the
7th and last shitah that it is from the usual "vechai bahem", and then
Rava agrees, poking holes in the other derashos.

The opinion I was giving was that of R' Shimon ben Menasyah (#6), who
derives it from "'veshameru Venei Yisrael es haShabbbos' -- ... chalal
alav Shabbos achas kedei sheyishmar shabasos harbei." The Ohr haChaim
on the pasuq says it's the maqor.

: 2. We generally pasken that pikuach nefesh overrides shabbat because of
: "ve-chai behem"

See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n010.shtml#11>, where
RYGB introduces to a discussion of tinoq shenishba (TsN) mention of
R SZ Aurbach's uncertainty whether a TsN who is machalel Shabbos is
applicable. The TE holds that a TsN is not mechalal Shabbos, so one apply
RSbM's derashah. But both would apparently agree that a true rebelious
mumar. IOW, "veshameru", not "vechai bahem" currently carries the day.
I don't get it, since Shemuel with Rava's support appears to be the
gemara's masqanah.

See RYGB's post and its replies (click on the subject line in the archive
to get to the index entry).


:> Which implies that all else being equal, mitzvos BALC (bein adam lachaveiro)
:> are more chamur than mitzvos BALM. QED.

: I don't agree. G-d tells us that we can violate his laws in order to save a
: life.
: That doesnt't give us permission to harm someone else to save a life. It has
: nothing to do with what is more chamur.

: For teshuva on bein-adam-lashem ones needs vidui for beinadam-lechavero one
: needs vidui plus forgiveness from a friend. This is the nature of the sin
: and has nothing to do with more chamur.

I defined a number of axes about which we can rank mitzvos as "worse"
(back in <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n004.shtml#15>). I'm sure
with work I can find more ranking systems, but the one that generated
this conversation was:
> Qal vachomer uses the number of activities restricted and the size of
> the onesh. In which case, it would have to be a sin for which the
> punishment is seqilah. Of them, perhaps chillul Shabbos, since a mumar
> leShabbos kemumar lekhol haTorah kulah.

I am trying to lay out a ranking system in which the greater number
of issurim or chiyuvim /defines/ the rank. You're reversing that
causality; which is valid, but now how mitzvos are ranked as qal
vs chomer when doing a qal vachomer -- it's a different ranking
system.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On further thought, it sounds like we have to tweak this. Really it's not
chazakah of death per se, but of inability to survive, no? Otherwise you
would have to say that Chazal had an incorrect chazakah. So then it really
would seem to be analogous to treifos, and also implies to me that we would
harvest from a living person who cannot survive. But that can't be right...
Also then it would clearly be okay to harvest from the brain-stem-dead as
they have no potential to survive. 

--
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
212.742.8770 ext. 2432
http://www.tourolib.org/

Access problems? Contact systems.libr...@touro.edu

On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:48, David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Hazal were not defining the moment of death; they were clarifying that lack of a heart beat establishes a hazakah of death.


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 10
**************************************

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..."