Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 165

Thu, 18 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Liron Kopinsky)
• 3. Same plate for cold meat or dairy (martin brody)
• 4. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Allan Engel)
• 5. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 8. Worm-Infested Sardines II (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Interlocking Fingers (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 10. Re: Interlocking Fingers (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: women and kiddush levanahafter (Chana Luntz)
• 12. GOD WHO KNOWS THE FUTURE (Richard Wolberg)
• 13. Re: Reporting Child Abuse - A Clarification (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 14. Re: Reporting Child Abuse - A Clarification (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Interlocking the Fingers of the Right Hand with the Fingers of the Left Hand (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)

On 16/08/2011 4:13 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
> no mesora of danger through Torah SheBaal Peh

The Zohar is not TShBP?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:59 PM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>  >>>>>
>  If you don't worry about kabbalah you don't have to worry about
> interlocking your fingers.  It's like sheidim, if  you don't believe in them
> and don't worry about them they have little or no power over you.
>

I thought we *are* supposed to believe in them, and actually take
precautions against them, but never-the-less not worry about them. A bit of
a catch-22...

 Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110817/d1fa85eb/attachment-0001.htm>

"My apologies if my assumption was incorrect. Is it permissible to use
the same plates for meat and milk if the food is always cold?
Garry"

No you can't, but if you do, no harm is done. (Nor if the food is warm
either, but that's another story).

Bon appetit

Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110816/fb050014/attachment-0001.htm>

If I publish a sefer of chiddushim it's also TShBP, but that doesn't mean I
have the right to invent new halochos.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 16/08/2011 4:13 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
>
>> no mesora of danger through Torah SheBaal Peh
>>
>
> The Zohar is not TShBP?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110817/51945f29/attachment-0001.htm>

R'ZS:
In any event, I've never heard that interlocking the fingers is *assur*.
<SNIP>
-------------


very makpid on this.

KT,
MYG

On 8/16/2011 6:25 PM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:59 PM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:
>> If you don't worry about kabbalah you don't have to worry about
>> interlocking your fingers.  It's like sheidim, if  you don't believe
>> in them and don't worry about them they have little or no power over
>> you.

> I thought we *are* supposed to believe in them, and actually take
> precautions against them, but never-the-less not worry about them. A bit
> of a catch-22...

"Supposed to"?  According to whom?


On 8/16/2011 6:28 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 4:13 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
>> no mesora of danger through Torah SheBaal Peh

> The Zohar is not TShBP?

Not universally accepted TshBP.

Lisa

R'n TK:

If you don't worry about kabbalah you don't have to worry about interlocking
your fingers.  It's like sheidim, if  you don't believe in them and don't
worry about them they have little or no power over you.

 

R' Liron Kopinsky:

I thought we *are* supposed to believe in them, and actually take
precautions against them, but never-the-less not worry about them. A bit of
a catch-22...

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



 

R'n TK is paraphrasing the Gemara in Pesachim (110b towards the top) and
Rashi there. Check it out.

 

KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110816/001fa3e6/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/43vqkct

As a follow-up to this post 
(<http://torahmusings.com/2011/06/worm-infested-sardines/>link), 
I obtained this Q&A of Daf HaKashrus  with permission to publish:

Question:

The note preceding the sardine article/ R? 
Belsky?s teshuva/ stated that the new scientific 
DNA research proves that as ?R? Belsky Shlita 
concludes that these are the same anisakis worms 
which Halachah permits as being Darni D?Cavri. 
These worms have migrated from the flesh of the 
fish to its gut. R? Belsky?s conclusion was 
scientifically borne out??. How did the 
scientific research prove that they migrated from 
the flesh to the gut and not vice-versa?

Moshe ********

The Daf responds:

Dear Rabbi ********,

We apologize for the confusion caused by the 
introductory note. You are correct that the DNA 
research only proves that the worms in the gut of 
the sardines are Darni D?Cavri (permitted flesh 
worms). It does not directly indicate the 
direction of the migration. However, Rav Belsky 
explained in a separate teshuva that anisakis 
enter the sardines when they eat infected fish 
(krill). These worms are permitted because they 
initially become visible inside of these very 
small fish and as such the worms were never 
rochesh in the water. Accordingly, the direction 
of the migration is irrelevant.

We should also point out that the fact that the 
worms first become visible inside of the fish is 
only a suggested explanation for the heter. The 
reason for the absolute certainty of the heter is 
that the Gemara says that Darni D?Cavri are mutar 
and the Shulchan Aruch says that worms in the 
flesh are mutar. If anisakis is assur then there 
are no worms in any fish that are mutar and this 
is against the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch.


----------
Note: I have posted Daf HaKashrus, Vol. 19 no. 8 
(Sivan 5771, June 2011) at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf19-8f.pdf 
It deals in detail with the issue of worms in fish.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110817/3d3649b9/attachment-0001.htm>

"So's this.  If interlocking the fingers is dangerous, and there's an issur
on doing dangerous things, then it would follow that an issur is justified."

That's not how I see it.  Smoking is assur because we have recently learned
of its serious dangers.  Thus, based on the venerable halacha of not
harming yourself, its ban is not new halacha.  What, however, was learned
recently about interlocking fingers that was not known before?

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110817/79b1f578/attachment-0001.htm>

On 17/08/2011 8:36 AM, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
>> "So's this. If interlocking the fingers is dangerous, and there's an issur

> on doing dangerous things, then it would follow that an issur is justified."
> That's not how I see it. Smoking is assur because we have recently learned
> of its serious dangers. Thus, based on the venerable halacha of not harming
> yourself, its ban is not new halacha. What, however, was learned recently
> about interlocking fingers that was not known before?

Recently?  There's nothing at all recent about this.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

RET wrote:
 
> after chana nicely summarized various opinions about women and havdala
> can someone also please summarize the minhagim about women saying/not
> saying kiddush levana

I didn't think there was that much to say.

There seems to be (as far as I am aware) close to universal agreement that
it is a rabbinic mitzvah aseh shehazman grama, and hence women are patur. 
And while the gemora in Sanhedrin 42a seems to suggest that their women (or
Babalonian women, or some of their women) did say kiddish levana (possibly
linking it to the special observation of Rosh Chodesh by women), as far as
I was aware, the close to universal custom is, as the Aruch HaShulchan
notes (Orech Chaim siman 426 at the end), that women do not say it.  Those
who hold, like ROY for example, that women cannot say brochos in relation
to mitzvos for which they are patur, are clearly not going to allow them to
say it, at least with shem and malchus, and in addition, the Shlah (as
quoted by the Magen Avraham and the Mishna Brura on Orech Chaim siman 426)
holds that (even for Ashkenazim) women should not say it on the grounds
that they caused the pegam of the moon.

Are you aware of anything else?  Indeed do you know of anywhere where the custom of women was to say it?

 
> --
> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana

From: Richard Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
> The analogy I like to give is that if you had an unedited video of someone's
> whole life, would that affect the choices that person made? Of course, not.
> The only difference here is that God already has the video of your life, but
> since God is not bound by time, He knows the choices you will make. From
> our point of understanding, we see the choices someone made after the fact.
> God sees it before. The 

Harvey Benton wrote:
i think a simpler solution might be in order....

i you happen to know that one of your children (or many of your children)
prefer chocolate ice cream over say vanilla and you presented the given
child (or children) a choice of flavors.......

you KNOW (based on past experience, etc) that he/she/they, will choose
the flavor that they prefer, and in this case it is chocolate......

Unfortunately, there is not a "simpler" solution. This is quite complex theology.
The analogy given regarding a child preferring chocolate over vanilla is flawed.
In a sense, it is like saying if you know someone is a kleptomaniac and watch 
him on camera in a store, you know he will steal. That is no more free choice than
a child picking chocolate ice cream. A sound and correct analogy presumes that 
the person has an objective free choice. If you use the analogy above, then you 
do the opposite to illustrate free will. You weaken your whole argument.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110817/1da52471/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> The differance between the RCA and RAS's presentation of the
> Agudah's position is more that one says "contact the police,
> consult with pros and rabbis if you're unsure" and the other says,
> "contact your rabbi -- who presumably knows to consult
> professionals in the field -- unless you are certain". A
> difference in tenor, and thus possibly in how the instructions get
> followed lemaaseh.
>
> BTW, it's leshitasam. MO, which sees Western Civ as tools for
> qedushah first, and only then considers the risks involved,
> phrases it as calling secular authorities unless you're in doubt.
> The norm is to work with civil authorities (working with Western
> Civ), the need to ask a she'eilah, the exception. The Agudah,
> which has the chareidi focus on Western Civ as a challenge that
> once circumvented may still have some tools for avodas Hashem,
> talks about speaking to a rav unless your sure. The shei'eilah
> is the default, and only once checked does working with the
> Western Civ authorities make sense.

I don't understand what "Western Civ as tools for qedushah" has to do with
any of this. There's no logical connection that I can find between the
first paragraph and the second.

As I see it, both have the same top priority: protect the public. The main
difference between the two, as the first paragraph explained so well, is
that the RCA trusts the individual to decide, and the Agudah is afraid that
if the public has this permission, witch hunts may ensue, causing more
damage than the non-reporting might.

But there are other possibilities. One is that the RCA's threshhold is
"first-hand-knowledge or a reasonable suspicion", while the Agudah's is
"probable cause (raglayim la-davar)". I cannot help but notice this
difference in wording, and I think it is entirely possible that the Agudah
considers a mere "reasonable suspicion" to be **insufficient**.

In other words, it is not merely that the Agudah feels that we're dealing
with "a halakhic matter which requires a decision by a qualified posek" and
cannot be decided by a layman, but that the level of evidence which is
acceptable to the RCA is not good enough for Agudah.

None of the above should be understood as me endorsing one side or the
other. I do have some opinions on this, but this issue is far too important
for a katan like me to weigh in on. Leave this for the gedolim.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
57-Year-Old Mom Looks 25
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e4c53c1cec996f9502st05vuc

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:43:01PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I don't understand what "Western Civ as tools for qedushah" has to do
: with any of this. There's no logical connection that I can find between
: the first paragraph and the second.

: As I see it, both have the same top priority: protect the public. The
: main difference between the two, as the first paragraph explained so
: well, is that the RCA trusts the individual to decide, and the Agudah
: is afraid that if the public has this permission, witch hunts may ensue,
: causing more damage than the non-reporting might.

My point was the MO, which sees the offerings of secular professionals as
tools first and risks second is more likely to find it acceptable to rely
on the civil authorities' standards of plausibility and unacceptible
risk. Whereas the Agudah perforce has to put a rav in between the
indvidual and following those norms.

The emphasis on autonomy is also a leshitasam issue.

I'm trying to say that the differences between the RCA's and Agudah's
positions reflects their differing hashkafos in a broad sense. Even
with perfectly identical priorities, this difference in recommendation
would emerge.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 8/16/2011 9:07 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> R'n TK:
>> If you don't worry about kabbalah you don't have to worry about
>> interlocking your fingers.  It's like sheidim, if  you don't believe in
>> them and don't worry about them they have little or no power over you.

> R' Liron Kopinsky:
>> I thought we *are* supposed to believe in them, and actually take
>> precautions against them, but never-the-less not worry about them. A
>> bit of a catch-22...

> R'n TK is paraphrasing the Gemara in Pesachim (110b towards the top)
> and Rashi there. Check it out.

Yes, but that Gemara refers to Sheidim, not to Kabbalah. It is a very
big chiddush to say that you don't have to "worry" about interlocking
your fingers. I would not use the word "worry" - because da'aga b'lev
ish yisichena, one is supposed to try not to worry about things - but
one should attempt to avoid interlocking fingers. Besides admixing chesed
and gevurah (as opposed to the recommended enveloping gevurah in chesed -
right clasping left), you often see Catholic priests holding their hands
in that manner - ha'lo davar hu.

KT,
YGB


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 165
***************************************

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..."