Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 105

Wed, 22 Jun 2011

• 1. eye pains on shabbat (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 2. Re: eye pains on shabbat (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: eye pains on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Tznius for Men (Allan Engel)
• 9. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 11. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Micha Berger)
• 13. eye pains on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Tzitz Eliezer: Leaving A Wedding Or Sheva Brachos Before Birchas HaMazon (Prof. Levine)
• 15. The great Wives and Wigs controversy of 1890 (Prof. Levine)

RJR adds to RMB's possible understanding of nishtaneh hatevah the following:

"4. For the non-philosophical types, something changed , I don't really
know or care what, as long as it allows me to not have cognitive dissonance
(I'd say this is the one most contemporary observant Jews assume)"

I would add a no. 5:

5.  For just some regular, average MO types, nothing has changed, since we
believe that scientific or medical statements by great Jewish scholars of
the past may be, in some cases, simply wrong.  And I'd say that this is
what many (who knows about "most") contemporary MO Jews believe.

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110621/9c4f75a0/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
 
From: Eli Turkel _eliturkel@gmail.com_ (mailto:elitur...@gmail.com) 



In a recent daily halacha from ROY they discuss eye pains on  shabbat.
The gemara considers it choleh she-yesh bo sakanah because the eyes  are 
connected to the
heart. The question is that modern doctors don't  know of any connections 
between the eye and the heart.

-- 
Eli  Turkel







>>>>>
 
see:
 
"Eye Disease Caused By High Blood Pressure"
 
_http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/eye-dis
ease-hig
h-blood-pressure_ 
(http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-press
ure/guide/eye-disease-high-blood-pressure) 
 
or
 
_http://tinyurl.com/6kgexjm_ (http://tinyurl.com/6kgexjm) 
 
--begin quote--
 
In addition to causing heart and kidney problems, untreated high blood  
pressure can also affect your eyesight and cause eye  disease. Hypertension can 
cause damage to the blood vessels in the retina, the  area at the back of 
the eye where images focus. This eye disease is known as  hypertensive 
retinopathy. The damage can be serious if hypertension is not  treated. 
. 
--end quote-- 
also see:
 
"Are common eye problems linked to heart disease?" 
 
 
_http://www.sharecare.com/question/eye-problems-linked-heart-disease_ 
(http://www.sharecare.com/question/eye-problems-linked-heart-disease) 
 
or
 
_http://tinyurl.com/3e4xu2c_ (http://tinyurl.com/3e4xu2c) 
--begin quote-- 
Some recent studies show that common eye problems are linked to heart  
disease. An international group of researchers found that diabetic retinopathy,  
a leading cause of blindness in the U.S., is also a warning sign of heart  
failure. 
. 
The study tracked more than 1,000 middle-aged patients with type 2 diabetes 
 over nine years. They found that those who had retinopathy at the onset of 
the  study had more than double the risk of developing heart failure than 
those  without retinopathy. 
. 
Other studies have found similar connections: Retinopathy can signal heart  
disease in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Those with age-related  
macular degeneration (AMD) have double the risk of death from heart attack 
or  stroke. Even glaucoma patients face an increased risk of cardiovascular  
death. 
. 
--end quote--
 

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




_____________________  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110621/bc0b6d85/attachment-0001.htm>

At 12:30 PM 6/21/2011, R. Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:
>From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom" <kbl...@gmail.com>
>
>Conclusion: RYL would call this a "Minhog scam", precisely because of
>its source in the kitvei haAri, but it's legitimately Sephardic (and
>probably Chassidic) minhag, precisely because of its source.

Let me again point out that I am not the one who used the terminology 
"minhog scam."  It comes from the web site http://tinyurl.com/3uuyha3

Be this as it may,  I have wondered more than once how the ARI could 
come along and change so many things and have these changes accepted 
by many communities.  It is all the more surprising to me given that 
he lived for only 38 years according to many sources.

Many German communities did not adopt these changes, but most others 
have.  I find this most surprising.   YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110621/b6887f50/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Michael Poppers wrote:

> Earlier today, I mentioned the example of unmarried bochurim, even
> those already b'nei mitzvah, not being misateif batalis -- perhaps
> that non-action could be defended in an era when taleisim were
> expensive (especially if the motivation was to avoid agudos, those
> who could afford taleisim for their boys and those who could not),
> but why is it treated nowadays, when taleisim are essentially
> affordable for all, as some sacred, positive minhag?

It is treated "as some sacred, positive minhag" because we've forgotten the
reason behind it. All we know is that the previous generation acted this
way, and did so deliberately, and so shall we.

Perhaps it is comparable to the practice of making simple and inexpensive
funerals. I have heard many people comment about a fancy funeral that it
run counter to Jewish values, but this is arguably untrue. My understanding
is that for thousands of years, Jewish funerals were very fancy affairs,
according great dignity to the niftar. So much so that it came about that
many families, when they were unable to afford such a funeral, simply
abandoned their relatives to rot without any burial at all. Because of
this, Rabban Gamliel set a precedent of using simple tachrichim (Kesubos
8b), and thus was the minhag changed.

Thus, I understand simple funerals to NOT be an inherent good in Judaism.
It was adopted as a policy to avoid the situation that existed in R
Gamliel's day, but that doesn't change the *theoretical* ideal funeral
being a fancy funeral. Yet people *perceive* the Jewish ideal to be a
simple funeral. So too, people perceive the Jewish ideal to be that a
single man doesn't wear a tallis even if he can afford it, even though the
true ideal is otherwise.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e00d2182cd0612a86est05vuc

Unless you follow minhag taiman, in which case you do like the Mehaber 
(baesed on the Rambam?)

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom" <kbl...@gmail.com>
>
> In this case, Halachah Berurah 125:2 (R' David Yosef) says specifically
> "The minhag yisrael is like the opinion of the Ari Z"L, that the whole
> tzibbur says the whole nusach of kedushah word for word together with
> the shalicah tzibur, from the words 'nakishach v'na'aritzach' until the
> end of the whole kedushah."
> 

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:25:03AM -0400, Rich, Joel replied to my post:
:>> So we have three senses of the term on the table:
:>> 1- RAbhR: theory changed
:>> 2- The population changed due to breeding, nutrition and medicine
:>> 3- The biology changed
...
:> 4. For the non-philosophical types, something changed , I don't
:> really know or care what, as long as it allows me to not have cognitive
:> dissonance (I'd say this is the one most contemporary observant Jews
:> assume)

Is not caring about an answer to the question the same as an answer?

In reality, the term exists and was used. If we wish to understand
halakhah, we need to understand the concepts used.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 01:13:55PM -0400, Joseph C. Kaplan added:
: 5. For just some regular, average MO types, nothing has changed, since
: we believe that scientific or medical statements by great Jewish scholars
: of the past may be, in some cases, simply wrong. And I'd say that this
: is what many (who knows about "most") contemporary MO Jews believe.

But that's not a possible interpretation of nishtanah hateva. Or, to
put it another way, if you wish to hold this opinions without abanonding
use of the phrase, you're back to #1 -- NhT means that theory changed,
and Chazal spoke based on older and obsolescent theories.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

On 21/06/2011 1:17 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Be this as it may, I have wondered more than once how the ARI could
> come along and change so many things and have these changes accepted
> by many communities. It is all the more surprising to me given that he
> lived for only 38 years according to many sources.

It's because he didn't make anything up himself; everything he taught
came from his rebbe, Eliyohu Hanovi.  He revealed secrets that had not
been known before him, so it's logical that people changed their
minhogim to bring them into line with these new revelations, just as
the medical discoveries of the past 200 years have caused everyone to
change their lifestyles.



On 21/06/2011 4:10 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Unless you follow minhag taiman, in which case you do like the Mehaber (baesed on the Rambam?)

Not in any Temani minyan I've ever seen.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
> In light of what RSRH writes, namely, that clothing is supposed to
> differentiate us from animals and bring us closer to HaShem, what are the
> guidelines for men's dress?

I can't think of any animal that wears sandals, with or without socks, so
that should be different enough.

At 06:45 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote:
>On 21/06/2011 1:17 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>>Be this as it may, I have wondered more than once how the ARI could
>>come along and change so many things and have these changes accepted
>>by many communities. It is all the more surprising to me given that he
>>lived for only 38 years according to many sources.
>
>It's because he didn't make anything up himself; everything he taught
>came from his rebbe, Eliyohu Hanovi.  He revealed secrets that had not
>been known before him, so it's logical that people changed their
>minhogim to bring them into line with these new revelations, just as
>the medical discoveries of the past 200 years have caused everyone to
>change their lifestyles.

That's the claim, anyway.  I don't even know if it was his claim, or 
one that came around later, but I suspect that many, many people who 
go by minhag ARI do so simply because it's what they grew up with, 
and would be chagrined, to say the least, to find out that it was 
based on "angelic revelation".

Halakha does not allow for a revelation other than Sinai.  Nevi'im 
can tell us nuances, but a navi who tries to give us "revelation" of 
laws needs to die.

Lisa 

Paraphrasing R' AM:
Perhaps it is comparable to the practice of making simple and inexpensive
weddings. I have heard many people comment about a fancy wedding that it run
counter to Jewish values, but this is arguably untrue. My understanding is
that for thousands of years, Jewish weddings were very fancy affairs,
according great dignity to the chosson and kallahr. So much so that it came
about that many families, when they were unable to afford such a wedding,
simply abandoned their relatives to rot without any wedding at all. Because
of this, R' _____________ set a precedent of making a simple wedding, and
thus was the minhag changed.

Thus, I understand simple weddings to NOT be an inherent good in Judaism. It
was adopted as a policy to avoid the situation that existed in R'
______________'s day, but that doesn't change the *theoretical* ideal
wedding being a fancy wedding. Yet people *perceive* the Jewish ideal to be
a simple wedding.
<SNIP>

Anyone want to fill in the blank?

:-)

KT,
MYG
 

On 21/06/2011 8:17 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> Halakha does not allow for a revelation other than Sinai.  Nevi'im can tell us nuances, but a navi who tries to give us "revelation" of laws needs to die.

Excuse me?  Why do you think we say Baruch Shem?  Because Moshe heard
the mal'achim say it.  Why do we say Baruch She'amar?  Because it was on
a piece of paper that fell from heaven.  Why do we start saying at least
the first word of the part of kaddish after "Yehei Shmeih Rabba"?  Because
Eliyahu told an amora to say it.  How did Moshe know that the ketores can
prevent a plague?  Because the Malach Hamaves told him so.  There are many
examples of things we do and say because of supernatural revelation.

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

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:04:26PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: Paraphrasing R' AM:
: Perhaps it is comparable to the practice of making simple and inexpensive
: weddings. I have heard many people comment about a fancy wedding that it run
: counter to Jewish values, but this is arguably untrue...

Provably so, from a maamar chazal many (most of the men) of us say every
morning, "Eilu devarim she'ein lahem shiur ... vehakhnasas kallah".

I think it's more a matter of a situation that brings values into
conflict. (Diehard YUers can say the words "dialectic tension" here to
avoid the internal pressure that could be caused by holding it
in.) Mitzad the wedding itself, any penny spent lesameach chasan vekalah
is valued. Mitzad starting the couple on a life of histapqus, though...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

> So we have three senses of the term on the table:
> 1- RAbhR: theory changed
> 2- The population changed due to breeding, nutrition and medicine
> 3- The biology changed

First a warning - when I quote ROY it means the daf distributed by his
grandson quoting ROY

In this daf it states explicitly that things changes of tens of years
and seems to imply #3. When CI states that the semen and urine ducts
changed since chazal he strongly implies #3. Without going through
myriad of cases, in many poskim imply #3.

Yehuda Levi in "Science and Torah" gives many examples of #2

> R' Yaakov Menken (of torah.org) noted to me in a discussion that nishtaneh
> hateva in the usual sense (I think #3 is the one most contemporary
> observant Jews assume) is belief in evolution.

I heard from Dr. Steinberg many years ago (and I believe is in his
encyclopedia) that #3 implies evolution. Furthermore, evolution on a
scale much faster than scientists would agree. i.e. no scientist would
agree to evolution in the human body over a period of 2 thousand years
not to be speak of decades and centuries. This is one of the reasons
(among others) that scientists speak in terms of millions of years for
natural evolution. For some halachot nutrition can explain changes. In
many others we have to assume the gemara should not be interpreted
literally but as aggadah/metaphorically

What all this assumes is based on Rambam, RAbhR, and Geonim. However,
numerous rishonim had a different viewpoint and this seems to be accepted
by many achronim.



[Email #2. -micha]

> Some recent studies show that common eye problems are linked to heart
> disease. An international group of researchers found that diabetic
> retinopathy, a leading cause of blindness in the U.S., is also a warning
> sign of heart failure....

Rbn Katz has defended Chazal and shown one should not be quick to be
machmir against them Nevertheless, I assume R. Elyashiv was talking
about some external injury to the eye and not internal problems that
affect the eye.

kol tuv
Eli Turkel

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=5100

After Birchas HaMazon at a Chasuna or Sheva Brachos, the Sheva 
Brachos are said. Is a person who participated in the Seudah allowed 
to Bentch and leave before the Sheva Brachos (provided that he is in 
accordance with the halachos of Zimun) or is everyone obligated to 
stay until the end?

The Tzitz Eliezer (11:84) says that many people are not makpid to 
stay and leave early. He says that this custom can be justified and 
that in fact the Minchas Yitzchok says that if one needs to leave for 
an important reason before Birchas HaMazon he may do so.

The Tzitz Eliezer relies on Rav Shlomo Kluger who says that the 
obligation of Sheva Brachos is not triggered by the Seudah but rather 
by Birchas HaMazon itself, meaning that until they have said Birchas 
HaMazon there is no obligation of Sheva Brachos. Therefore if one can 
halachically leave before Birchas HaMazon he was never obligated in 
Sheva Brachos in the first place.

This chiddush has a number of halachic ramifications. According to 
this if a Sheva Brachos is made on the last day, even if the whole 
seudah is eaten before nighttime but Birchas HaMazon was not yet said 
until after nighttime, Sheva Brachos cannot be said anymore, since it 
depends purely on Birchas HaMazon which is not within the seven days.

Another point is that if the Panim Chadashos leaves before Birchas 
HaMazon, Sheva Brachos cannot be said. Moreover he may even leave 
early (provided he does not violate the Chiyuv of Zimun) and has not 
"ruined" the Sheva Brachos because before Birchas HaMazon it is not 
even a consideration.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110622/0e33efad/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/3hxadmw

Most people probably don't know about the Wives and Wigs controversy 
that brewed in the pages of London's Jewish Standard for two months 
in 1890. It all began apparently innocently, with a question signed 
by one Yehudi (i.e., "Jew," i.e. Anonymous):

Emacs!


Please see the above URL for the rest of this interesting article. YL 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110622/3d79c90e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 11b5152d.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 88803 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110622/3d79c90e/attachment.obj>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 105
***************************************

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..."