Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 17

Tue, 01 Feb 2011

• 1. Re: Can a Sefer Torah Be Donated or Lent to a Reform Temple? (Zev Sero)
• 2. bracha on tallit (Joel Schnur)
• 3. Re: bracha on tallit (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Brain Death (Micha Berger)
• 5. Can a Sefer Torah Be Donated or Lent to a Reform Temple? (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 6. Re: bracha on tallit (Goldmeier)
• 7. Haftaras Mishpatim (Micha Berger)
• 8. secular knowledge (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Machlokes R Elyashiv and R Ovadia Yosef (Hankman)
• 10. IDF Conversions (Hankman)
• 11. Re: Brain Death (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Brain Death (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: IDF Conversions (Daniel Israel)
• 14. Re: Vayhi bachatzi halayla (Poppers, Michael)
• 15. Re: Can a Sefer Torah Be Donated or Lent to a Reform Temple? (Daniel Israel)
• 16. Fwd: Rav Chazkel Levenstein On The Capture Of Adolf Eichmamm ym"s (Micha Berger)

On 31/01/2011 7:35 AM, SBA wrote:
> From: "David J Havin" To: "AVODAH"
> Is it permitted for an orthodox synagogue to donate or lend a Sefer Torah to
> a reform temple?
>>>
>
> What it be any different if the borrower was a catholic church or a Buddhist
> temple?

WRT a Catholic church, two possible reasons:  1. Avoda Zara; 2. Morasha
Kehilat Yaacov.

WRT the Buddhist temple, I'd say it depends what sort of Buddhists they
are.  It may be just as bad as a Catholic church, or even worse because
they don't even respect the Torah, so they can't be trusted to treat it
right.  But if they're the sort of Western Buddhists who have no trace
of AZ, and who may even have a similar percentage of Jews to what one
would find in a typical R temple, and who respect the Torah in an "all
the world's religions" kind of way, then you're right that it's the
same question.


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

Add to the list the Gra who says to make another bracha each time you take
off and put back your tallis godol or tallis katan throughout the day.
Swimming, shower, doctor's office, bathroom, sleep and the like

 

___________________________

Joel Schnur

Senior VP

Government Affairs/Public Relations

Schnur Associates, Inc.

1350 Avenue of the Americas

Suite 1200

New York, NY 10019

 

Tel. 212-489-0600 x204

Fax. 212-489-0203 

j...@schnurassociates.com 

www.schnurassociates.com
<http://www.schnurassociates.com/>  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110131/01b685a8/attachment-0001.htm>

Sidenote: The word "tallis" is a weak raayah for the /s/ pronunciation
of the undotted sav. Here's my case:

There are two etymologiers floating around for it:
1- Aramaic /tll/, meaning "to cover". (Jastrow)
2- Others (e.g. RSM at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n039.shtml>) suggest the origin
is the Greek stole. There are other Greek borrowings into Aramaic
where a leading "as-" gets added ("aspaqlaria", from the root "spect" [to
look], comes immediately to mind) or drops off.

The latter would explain the use of both "tallios" and "tallisos". When we
borrow a word with a Greek "-is" suffix, do we treat it as though it had
the feminine Hebrew "-is" suffix ("tallios") or leave the suffix alone
("tallisos")? Or even the Ashknenazi constructions of "tallis qatan"
and "tallis gadol" -- both of which assume the word is masculine.

BTW, R' Yaakov Kamenicki says that "tallis qatan" refers to a tallis
worn by a qatan, referring to the minimum shiur for tallis -- and not
to the size of the tallis. Thus resolving the gender issue a different
way.

The subject of this thread switches from "tallis" to "tallit", depending
upon the author. But it's quite probable the last letter in the word is
a sigma, and thus /s/. Not /t/ or /th/.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:41:21AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> I'm saying "alive" and "dead" are primitive concepts which don't need
> definitions. Most actual cases are clear, but some important cases are
> not, and it is for some of those that we rely on hazakos.

Rather than my leaving both questions vague by not even suggesting the
start of answers, let's deal with what the Torah implies is human life.

Hashem takes some mud, "breathes" into it a soul, "vayehi adam lenefesh
chayah". So, what would I conclude? That chayim, in a halachic-chalos
sense of the word, implies some kind of relationshio between body and
soul. One that an unconscious person in a coma has (who is not brain
dead in any sense and whose heart and lungs operate on their own),
and yet someone who was recently niftar and still experiencing chibut
haqever does not.

That's not a scientific concept. The best we can do is find medical states
that are impossible when this connection exists, and test whether they
are present. That's where we get to question 2: establishing a chazaqah
that misah has occured.

Even that may be too weak. Perhaps it's possible that some physical and
thus empirically measurable process is always present when the person
is chai. Then we can know for sure, not just chazaqah, that if we do
not measure that process, he's dead.

Last, it's possible that we can't measure it, we can only measure
something that tends to be true when the person is chai, and thus need
to rely on chazaqah to close that certainty gap.

> Incidentally the distinction between "alive" and "[what] it means to
> be a living person" is too subtle for me. Can you explain it?

I don't make such a distinction. I make one between "alive" in colloquial
senses, the AMA definition, the definitions of various governments'
civil law, and the halachic concept of chayim. There is no reason to
assume they all always refer to the same set of physical medical states.

>> I was suggesting that R' Tendler's and the CR's position is based on
>> defining life in terms of the ability to have a self-caused heartbeat,
>> whereas the majority opinion is based on the ability to have a hea[r]tbeat,
>> regardless of what is making it beat.

To correct myself, as others already did... RMT speaks of self-caused
breathing -- not heartbeat. (Assuming I ignore the part where he instead
says it's about the breath's oxygen reaching the brain. But I can write
a parallel of the rest of this post using that variant.)

It's notable that the metaphor the Torah uses for the soul entering the
body is "vayipach be'apav", and that the Tanakh's usual terms for soul are
all related to breath: neshamah, ruach,and nefesh. I don't know /what/ to
make of it, but there must be some significance to this use of metaphor.
(I presume we agree that if Hashem is described as "vayipach be'apav"
we are speaking idiomatically, not literally.)

> Let's consider another case. If a married man falls into mayim sheyeish
> lahem sof and remains there for, say, 15 minutes, his wife may remarry.
> I would explain that falling and remaining in water creates a hazakah
> that the man is dead.

> RMB, as I understand him (henceforth RMBAIUH), would take that as an
> alternative definition of death (why is it any worse than no heartbeat?).

No, I would agree that we're relying on a chazaqah. However, that's a
different question.

Someone who almost definitely drowned is meis by whatever that word means.
The question of being very specific in our definitions isn't the central
one to knowing whether or not this woman is an almanah.

Is that true in our original case? Is it really about one saying that we
can presume someone is a meis when breathing can no longer be restored to
the body and another says that we can presume it when bedavqa *autonomous*
breathing can no longer be restored?

Or are they arguably in machloqes about what the word meis itself
means. One saying it relates to breath itself, and the other saying it
relates to the capacity to breath on one's own. Based on RMT's words,
he's looking for a different biological capacity because he believes
that misah is defined in terms of that capacity.

Thus, we aren't arguing about how much certainty is necessary, but rather
what it is we must be certain of.

I have a problem assuming it's about chazaqah for another reason...
Most cases of death do not involve donatable organs. Most people die
with organs worn out by age or tainted by disease. So in most cases
where we need to determine death, there is a clear "playing safe" side
to the question.

If everyone agreed what misah is, as well as what are the physical
symptoms of misah, and the question was how much sureness is "sure enough"
for a chazaqah, how could dinei nefashos not rely on the most conservative
test possible?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@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

i believe  i had  previously asked about  O sofrim  writing  sifrei  tora 
for non-O  institutions/temples. no one  seemed to find  any source 
material against it .    nor,  for sellers of  sifrei tora to inquire what 
the potential buyer 
's religious affiliation is , nor  what the plans are for the  sefer.   
one could  conclude that lending the tora  would  be no worse  than 
selling it  , or writing it  lechatchila  for that use 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110131/dbcbdc7b/attachment-0001.htm>

I dont know if it is based on the same logic or not, but the GRA also 
says everytime you go leave the sukka and go back in to sit, learn, 
sleep, read, etc. you make a new bracha of leisheiv basukka...

Kol Tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

On 31/1/2011 5:41 PM, Joel Schnur wrote:
>
> Add to the list the Gra who says to make another bracha each time you 
> take off and put back your tallis godol or tallis katan throughout the 
> day. Swimming, shower, doctor's office, bathroom, sleep and the like
>
> ___________________________
>
> Joel Schnur
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110131/843aedfc/attachment-0001.htm>

R Gershon Dubin asked on Areivim how many of us were in shuls that
deviated from the haftorah as printed in most chamushim: Yirmiyahu
34:8-22, and then 33:25-26. The motive for the skip is to end the haftorah
on a happier note.

However, the SA OC 144:1 as explained by the MB s"q 9 that you can't
read the haftorah lemafreia'. The MA s"q 4 ties it (based on context)
to Terei Asar in particular, and then asks why the SA limits it --
since one can't read any navi lemafreia'. IOW, the MA has a comma
between the discussion of going from book to book in Terei Asar and
"as long as you don't read lemafreia'", whereas the MB has a period.
But both acknowledge that you don't read a haftorah lemafreia'.

Which would rule out skipping backwards from the end of 34 back to 33:25!

The Rambam's siddur, at the end of Sefer Ahavah, has the haftorah as 34:1,
34:8 or 35:1 -- the words "HaDavar asher hayah el Yirmiyahu me'eis H'"
appear at all three so it's ambiguous -- through 35:19 (the end of 35).

R' Chaim Brown in his blog similarly quotes R' Chaim Kanievsky in his
seifer Taamei Diqra that one should instead just keep on going through
pereq 35 to the end.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres Hakodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

http://revach.net/avodah/olam-hato
rah/Parshas-Truma-Maharsham-A-Talmid-Chochom-Must-Have-Worldly-Wisdom/4950<
/a>
so if anyone says the gdolim lack secular knowledge, he is really 
impugning their tora learning.....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110131/88538100/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote [to Areivim]:
> Actually, many shu"t are built around the meishiv seeing both sides of
> a machloqes and then being someich on the meiqilim because of the human
> cost of being chosheish for the machmirim.

See Today's guest post on RHM's blog that seems to enlarge and flesh
out exactly the point you made which follows below:

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

Differences in the Modus Operandi of Gedolim
Guest Post by Rabbi Dovid Landesman

....
I am not an authorized spokesman for either Rav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv or
for Rav Ovadia Yosef; nevertheless, I think that it is critical to try
and understand where each is coming from. As is the case with many public
issues in Israel, there is a fundamental difference in approach that is
manifested in their opposing views. R' Elyashiv - and the rabbanim who
follow his direction - choose to live in a halachic bubble where the
only issue of concern is what halachah demands.

The political ramifications of a halachic stance are immaterial because,
in their view, the political exigencies of a state and its need to satisfy
the needs of all of its constituents are immaterial and have no bearing
since the state itself has no real legitimacy. In this view, the chiloni
majority in the state has no standing in terms of being a part of the
klal for whom they are responsible and they can therefore be ignored.

Rav Yosef, on the other hand, in his dual role as posek and political
leader, must by force take other factors into consideration. If there
is a means of relying on a lenient opinion, then for the sake of the
needs of the entire klal it is within the posek's authority to do so,
even if the majority of opinions holds differently.

I would posit that Rav Goren zt'l issued his decision on the Langer
mamzerim issue on this same basis. Although the halachic consensus would
have had him declare them mamzerim, the political exegincies at the time,
in his view, called for him to reach a conclusion - with precedent albeit
limited - that was politically potable. The same might be true of the
psak of Reb Yitzchak Elchanan regarding the heter mechirah. The needs
of the time may have caused him to decide to rely on a leniency that he
would not have considered in other situations.

Obviously, Rav Elyashiv is aware of political realities. I would
conjecture, however, that he is reluctant to follow Rav Yosef's analysis
of the political needs at this juncture because he is reticent to create
these kinds of precedents which, in his view, will only lead to demands
for a more amenable approach to questions of halachah vs. medinah. Better
to take a stand on this issue and protect halachah than to compromise
and be subject to pressures.

As such, what we have here is a political debate between gedolai yisrael
on a subject that, in truth, has never really been resolved since the
founding of the State. Until such time as a consensus can be reached
that will bind all poskim [something that only Eliyahu ha-Navi can bring
about], we will continue to be subject to these types of arguments. I
only pray that they remain civil and respectful to both sides.
....

RSM wrote on Areivim:
> He [RSM's Rav] cited the concept of "zera Yisrael", of partial Jewish
> parentage, as a relevant factor in establishing the validity of the
> conversion process in question, in accordance with authoritative halachic
> opinions. Almost all IDF converts fall into this category.

While the concept of "zera Yisrael," of partial Jewish parentage is
not new to me (the most famous of such is an odious one from WWII so I
won't go there.) I know, some in kiruv find a special imperative to be
"mekarev" such "zera Yisrael" to geirus. But I know of no such halachic
notion for consideration in geirus. I would appreciate any broadening of
my horizons in this regard that anyone can offer from sifrei rishonim,
achronim or tshuvot. Did you ask your Rav the source for this point of
view? If he could clarify the basis of the idea that would be great. Is
this another demographic, social etc. reason to follow the meikil as we
have heard before? Or is there some hidden mystical notion at play here
of retrieving some sort of "hidden kedusha" in the "zera Yisrael"?

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

In a previous post I cited a gemara in Nidda but mistakenly said it was 
in Gittin.

RMB:
> Rather than my leaving both questions vague by not even suggesting the
> start of answers, let's deal with what the Torah implies is human life.
>
> Hashem takes some mud, "breathes" into it a soul, "vayehi adam lenefesh
> chayah". So, what would I conclude? That chayim, in a halachic-chalos
> sense of the word, implies some kind of relationshio between body and
> soul. One that an unconscious person in a coma has (who is not brain
> dead in any sense and whose heart and lungs operate on their own),
> and yet someone who was recently niftar and still experiencing chibut
> haqever does not.
The problem with this argument in that Hazal draw analogies between 
human death and animal death.  See the discussion of decapitation in the 
tshuvah of RMF which RAM cited.  You, IIUYC, ought to claim that all 
such analogies are irrelevant.  This passuk is cited by several rishonim 
as evidence of the unique nature of the human soul.  So how can it be 
relevant to death, which is analogous to what happens to animals?

David Riceman

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 06:19:06PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> The problem with this argument in that Hazal draw analogies between  
> human death and animal death.  See the discussion of decapitation in the  
> tshuvah of RMF which RAM cited.  You, IIUYC, ought to claim that all  
> such analogies are irrelevant.  This passuk is cited by several rishonim  
> as evidence of the unique nature of the human soul.  So how can it be  
> relevant to death, which is analogous to what happens to animals?

WADR, you're missing the forest for the trees.

My point is that there are two, or perhaps three issues here:

1- Chai vs meis, which for all we know may not be a physical issue. Animals
   too have nefashos.
   But even if it is a physical issue, we still need to define what change
   does a body undergo when it crosses the line, and I have no reason
   to assume all acharonim agree as to what that is.

   (For that matter, you equally raise a problem with brain-stem death, as
   non-cordates [e.g. bugs, lobsters and octopii] can also be alive or dead,
   despite lacking anything removely like our brain structure.)

2- Diagnosis -- finding a physical feature that rules out the person as
   a chai.

2b- Chazaqah -- where a certain diagnosis is impossible.

I still think the machloqes is on the first level. They are assuming
different things about what is misah, whether misah necessarily involves
the brain. This then changes the choice of diagnostic tool.

My particular stab in the dark as to where to look to find a definition
of alive isn't really the point. It's the separation of concerns:
defining life vs defining what medical tests can be used diagnostically
to determine it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

FWIW, I heard in the name of R' Dovid Feinstein that in the case of someone
with a Jewish father one should not recruit them, but not discourage them
as one would normally do with a potential convert.  I cannot say what his
source is, and I make no suggestion as to how he holds on the controversy
under discussion.

I have also observed that this seems to be the approach of at least one widely respected American BD.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>  I know, some in kiruv find a special imperative to be
> "mekarev" such "zera Yisrael" to geirus. But I know of no such halachic
> notion for consideration in geirus. I would appreciate any broadening of
> my horizons in this regard that anyone can offer from sifrei rishonim,
> achronim or tshuvot. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110131/2583699f/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V28n16, RGD asked:
> My feeling is that not all of the events described in the piyut said
> at the seder Vayhi Bachatzi Halayla, were at midnight. ?Avrohom
> Avinu's victory over the 4 kings, and makas bechoros, definitely were,
> but such events as Haman's writing his letters, Belshazar's downfall,
> Hashem's appearing to Lavan, etc. are at night, but not necessarily
> midnight. Can anyone confirm/deny/comment? <
One can also ask RYReisman's implied (from his shiur this past motzoei
Shabbos on the subject of n'qamah) Q on the piyut: why isn't the incident
with Rus reclining next to Boaz (see Rus 3:8) mentioned....

All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

Here perhaps there is an issue of parnassa.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Jan 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:

> 
> i believe	i had  previously asked about  O sofrim  writing  sifrei 
> tora  for non-O  institutions/temples. no one  seemed to find  any
> source material against it .    nor,  for sellers of  sifrei tora to
> inquire  what the potential buyer 
> 's religious affiliation is , nor	what the plans are for the  sefer. 
>	       one could  conclude that lending the tora  would  be no
> worse  than selling it  , or writing it  lechatchila  for that use 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110131/d793c425/attachment-0001.htm>

From <http://revach.net/article.php?id=4954>.

-Micha

   Rav Chazkel Levenstein On The Capture Of Adolf Eichmamm ym"s

   Rav Chatzkel says (Ohr Yechezkel: Middos - Laasos Nekama BaGoyim)
   that we are all born with an ingrained trait of hatred. Unless we
   rid ourselves of it, it will haunt us from time to time in our lives
   even if we think we are above it. Often we may think that we are
   preaching a good cause but it is a mere cover for our instinctive
   trait of hatred coming in disguise.

   Take the capture of Eichmann, said Rav Chatzkel right after he was
   caught and brought to Israel. That is all people and the newspapers are
   talking about all day. The public brags that we merited to take revenge
   in a murderer and Hashem is the master of revenge. The truth is, says
   Rav Chatzkel, this idea is nonsense and far from any understanding
   of Torah.

   If we found murder so terrible why are we not shaken by a recent
   earthquake that took the lives of thousands, asked Rav Chatzkel? Do
   we think taking revenge on Eichmann is going to bring back six million
   lost lives? Why is everybody so busy with him, is he the only murderer
   in the world? What is the relevance of the number of his murders,
   if it is only a product of his ingenuity and opportunity? Eisav's
   lifeblood is the sword and anyone is capable of doing what he did.

   Our excitement of his capture stems from our desire to be victorious.
   It has nothing to do with avenging Hashem's name. All talk of that
   is idle chatter. The lesson we need to draw from Eichmann is that if
   we do not root out hatred from our heart we can literally become an
   animal in every sense of the word. And this is only through Torah.

   We must see that our outlook is far from the Torah. Al Pi Torah
   we must not look at the worst Rasha with complete hatred even for
   committing the most heinous crimes. We should only be concerned with
   Kavod Shamayim which demands that a Rodef be put to death. But to seek
   the blood of a murderer is forbidden and we must not be happy with
   his day of reckoning. We must not forget the concept of Tzelem Elokim.

   While these words seem far from us, Rav Chatzkel says that these are
   the foundations of mussar and someone who is far from mussar can not
   comprehend this at all. Scary... 


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 17
**************************************

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..."