Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 217

Tue, 01 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: More Tzaar (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: More Tzaar (Micha Berger)
• 3. Is there any issur here al pi halacha?--selling/buying of kidneys (Joel Schnur)
• 4. Re: Well, we are back to the achbor shechetsyo basarvechetsyo, adama in the daf yomi (hankman) (Lampel)
• 5. Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha?--selling/buying of kidneys (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (hankman)
• 7. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Dov Weinstock)
• 10. Re: Questions on Parshat Noach (Eli Altschuler)
• 11. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Saul Guberman)
• 12. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Saul Guberman)
• 13. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Dov Weinstock)
• 14. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Dov Weinstock)

RMB:

<< I believe you're taking two sides of the same machloqes. If you hold 
that mitzta'er renders the booth a non-sukkah, then you hold that 
mitzta'er is a petur on the first night -- you have no Sukkah to go to!>>

Am I correct in guessing that you haven't actually looked in Har'rei 
Kedem?  Here's my translation of the relevant bit: "R. Moshe responded 
to him that in any case he's obliged.  Everyone agrees that mitztaer is 
obliged to eat the first kezayis on the first night [in the sukka].  The 
person who exempts does so only on the grounds that the sukka is unfit 
as a residence during rainfall; it lacks the status (shem) of sukka and 
lacks the status of residence (dirah)."
   The implication is that according to those opinions which permit 
eating inside there can be no kiyum until the rain stops.  Hence RMS 
woke up his children at that point.
> BTW, I since found in Reshimos Shi'urim, Sukkah pg 92, that RYBS draws
> the conclusion I did from the story. He makes a chiluq between where the
> sukkah and the space within it causes the tza'ar, and when the tza'ar
> is getting to the Sukkah.
Yes, the conclusions there are very different than in Har'rei Kedem.  I 
have to admit I find the argument there less convincing, since the 
reason for not waking a sleeping person is not tza'ar but tircha, 
derived directly from teishvu k'ein taduru.  See the citation from the 
Bigdei Yesha in MB SK 39.

Incidentally we find "tza'ar" used as a synonym for "waking up" used 
transitively, as in Berachos 13b "amar leih R. Nahman l'Daru avdeih: 
bipsuka kama tza'aran, tfei lo t'tza'aran."  Compare OH 63:5 which uses 
both verbs.

David Riceman

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 02:40:02PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>>> There's no p'tur of mitztaer on the first night! How is this a proof of
>>> anything?

>> I believe you're taking two sides of the same machloqes. If you hold  
>> that mitzta'er renders the booth a non-sukkah, then you hold that  
>> mitzta'er is a petur on the first night -- you have no Sukkah to go to!

> Am I correct in guessing that you haven't actually looked in Har'rei  
> Kedem? ...

Yes, I heard RYBS in a recording, I don't recall of which shiur, and
presumed his presentation of the story was consistent with the one that
made it to print.

>         Here's my translation of the relevant bit: "R. Moshe responded  
> to him that in any case he's obliged.  Everyone agrees that mitztaer is  
> obliged to eat the first kezayis on the first night [in the sukka].  The  
> person who exempts does so only on the grounds that the sukka is unfit  
> as a residence during rainfall; it lacks the status (shem) of sukka and  
> lacks the status of residence (dirah)."

>   The implication is that according to those opinions which permit  
> eating inside there can be no kiyum until the rain stops.  Hence RMS  
> woke up his children at that point.

I think the difference between us is wording: whether you want to call
"i efshar", the permission not to sit in a sukkah when none exists, is
to be called a "petur", or you avoid the term -- in your translation,
by using the English "exempts".

If you look at the text you're replying to, I called "you have no Sukkah
to go to" a petur, something HK says as "The person who exempts does so
only on the grounds that the sukka is unfit".

>> BTW, I since found in Reshimos Shi'urim, Sukkah pg 92, that RYBS draws
>> the conclusion I did from the story. He makes a chiluq between where the
>> sukkah and the space within it causes the tza'ar, and when the tza'ar
>> is getting to the Sukkah.

> Yes, the conclusions there are very different than in Har'rei Kedem...

Not having seen HK but only your summary thereof (and hearing RYBS telling
the story, in what was probably a 3rd setting) I have no idea how you see
the two as different. Just as I don't see how your translation differs
in substance from what I wrote.

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

Having been on dialysis for close to 3 yrs before getting a transplant
(thank you to my brother David), I can personally attest to the lowered
quality of life when undergoes. However, what this individual did was
blatantly against the law n the US and in most countries. And I echo that in
my official capacity as a member of the NYS Transplant Council.

 

___________________________

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/20111031/32845aca/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB: The natural philosophy of the day taught that such an animal 
existed. Chazal applied halakhah to that case. But they don't assert the 
case is real, they take that for granted.

CM responded: ...Yeti...a Saskwatch ... a Unicorn ...Nessie ... I am not 
sure why even in those days a mouse made half of basar and half of adama 
was not at least in the same class as these.... Besides when you ponder 
creatures you have never seen, but only heard about in legend or tales 
from travellers (who want to write a book), there is very little info 
and fact of the sort you need to base halacha on. ...
Relevant to both comments:

Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos (Chulin) writes, "This is a well-known 
matter; there is no end to the number of people who have told me that 
they have seen it. Such a thing is indeed astonishing, and I have no 
explanation for it."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111031/bd187b1c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 31/10/2011 5:10 PM, Joel Schnur wrote:
> Having been on dialysis for close to 3 yrs before getting a transplant
> (thank you to my brother David), I can personally attest to the
> lowered quality of life when undergoes. However, what this individual
> did was blatantly against the law n the US and in most countries. And
> I echo that in my official capacity as a member of the NYS Transplant
> Council.

Yes, it was against the law.  So what?  There is no issur, and a huge
mitzvah, so the law can go hang itself.  *Even if* you believe that there
is some sort of chiyuv to obey the law, there is no basis whatsoever for
elevating that chiyuv above a dikduk kal shel divrei sofrim.  For this
purpose he would be allowed to be mechalel shabbos, kal vachomer that
he can and should ignore the law.

-- 
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

                    
                

R? Harchinam wrote:

What evidence? There is none, really. Just taking Gaza in EY for an
example, it was a total desert wasteland for many decades when there were
no Jews there and after the Jews came back it looked like no one ever left.
There were people living in many areas before the mabul, people were wiped
out, and then people came back there. There are artifacts and leavings from
various times in history, but there is absolutely no way to find proof of
artifacts from the specific one-year period of the mabul or the few years
afterwards. And floods don't dissolve artifacts, they bury them and/or wash
them away. We see that after terrible flooding and natural disasters in
various parts of the world they are rebuilt and look basically "good as
new" afterwards. It doesn't take that long for humans to reproduce and to
repopulate areas that were once barren -- EY is proof of that.

CM responds:

Even if one were to accept your argument concerning the artifacts of the
inhabited areas of the world at that time (as sparsley as the world was
then populated),  I think one still has major explaining to take care of
with how you would expect the fossil record in the uninhabited world of the
period to show up today. Following a flood of global proportions killing
off all land life outside the Teiva one would expect that all the cadavers
would eventually collect and settle in great disorder and all mixed
together when finally brought to rest by the receding waters in many low
lying areas many of which would be remote from human settlement for a long
time. These would be at one stratum (that of the mabul) readily identified
by these many collections of fossils over the entire globe. This stratum
should at the very least have many such large random collections of fossils
of the fauna circa 4000 years ago at dips in the terrain that collected
there post Mabul as it dried up on a
 ll of the continents. I think this expectation is not met in any known stratum that has so far been uncovered.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111031/a0973d75/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:56 AM, hankman <hank...@bell.net> wrote:

>  Even if one were to accept your argument concerning the artifacts of the
> inhabited areas of the world at that time (as sparsley as the world was
> then populated),  I think one still has major explaining to take care of
> with how you would expect the fossil record in the uninhabited world of the
> period to show up today. Following a flood of global proportions killing
> off all land life outside the Teiva one would expect that all the cadavers
> would eventually collect and settle in great disorder and all mixed
> together when finally brought to rest by the receding waters in many low
> lying areas many of which would be remote from human settlement for a long
> time. These would be at one stratum (that of the mabul) readily identified
> by these many collections of fossils over the entire globe. This stratum
> should at the very least have many such large random collections of fossils
> of the fauna circa 4000 years ago at dips in the terrain that collected
> there post Mabul as it dried up on all of the continents. I think this
> expectation is not met in any known stratum that has so far been uncovered.
>

How do you translate Gen 7:23 - ???????? ???-????-???????? ??????
???-?????? ?????????, ??????? ???-???????? ???-?????? ?????-????
???????????, ???????????, ???-???????; ???????????? ????-???? ????????
??????, ????????
Vayimach et kol hayekum asher al pnei haadama...?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111101/6b06d231/attachment-0001.htm>

 From today's Hakhel Email Bulletin

>Special Note One:  One more word on standing for the Chosson and 
>Kallah, from a reader:
>
>"Observe carefully Gedolim at Chasunos and you will see that most do 
>not stand for the Chosson and Kallah and some stand for a second.  I 
>have discussed this with Rav Binyamin and Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky at 
>chasunos  and the conclusion seems to have been that there is no 
>mitzvah to stand for the Chosson and Kallah, although nothing wrong 
>with it, let's stand for the Deoraisa."
>
>
>
>Hakhel Conclusion: Based upon readers asking their own Poskim the 
>question, may we suggest that everyone ask their own Posek what they 
>should do.  May each reader be blessed with this Shailah coming up 
>very often in their lives!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111101/31d70e62/attachment-0001.htm>

This standing for the C&K seems to be a recent innovation. It seems likely
that it was copied from church weddings. Why is it not forbidden by
chareidim as chukos hagoyim?

Dov Weinstock
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111101/f40bf491/attachment-0001.htm>

On Oct 30, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Question 1:
> The Gemarrah in Brachot 61A says that adam was created last in creation
> but first for puranot, as it says (Gen 7:23)
...
> Just 2 pesukim earlier it says:
...
> Here, man is quoted last.

> 1a) Why is the order switched in these 2 pesukim?
> 1b) Why does the gemarrah seem to ignore the first pasuk when drawing its
> lesson about who was first in receiving punishment?

> Question 2:
> The standard answer to the question "Why was the dor hamabul punished so
> much more than the dor hapalaga, even though the dor hamabul were (only)
...
> If this is true, then why was the sin of the meraglim - where all of Bnei
> Yisrael were united in their sin - punished worse than the sin of the egel
> hazahav - where there was opposition and most people were not involved?

Good questions. One answer which touches the 1st question, but might
answer the 2nd, has to do with the switch in how God views us after the
Mabul to allow the earth to continue functioning. It was an even further
fall in Adam's status than we experienced after the original Gan Eden
fall - but possibly just as necessary.

Rav Matis points out that before the flood God says that since the heart
of man has become corrupt and he has brought evil, He will destroy all
of creation - animals and plants as well. In that scenario the entire
purpose of creation is in Adam - so that when he becomes corrupt there
is no longer any reason to allow the rest of creation to remain.

After the flood when God promises not to destroy the world again he
says "why should I destroy the rest of creation (animals, plants) just
because of the evil of man? In this new Adam status we are just another
part of the earth and creation - so that are viewed closer to animals -
and they are a new justification for keeping the world alive. This is
why we are also told then that we are allowed to start eating meat - we
have entered the food chain, so to speak. We are now part of the animal
kingdom - representing the animals new elevated status and our lowered
one. That's also why were given a special bracha to protect us from the
animals - before the flood we were such revered and distinct creatures
that the animals wouldn't dare attack us - but now we are more like them
and need special protection.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:54, Dov Weinstock <dov.weinst...@nycadvantage.com>
wrote:
> In North America, I have never seen a chuppah without seating for all.

I am in N.A. That is not my point. The point is that the innovation
is the seats & indoor weddings not the standing. RMF has a teshuvah
about having the ceremony in the sanctuary of the shul and in general
about indoor weddings.

Saul

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:05, Dov Weinstock
<dov.weinst...@nycadvantage.com> wrote:
> This standing for the C&K seems to be a recent innovation. It seems likely
> that it was copied from church weddings. Why is it not forbidden by
> chareidim as chukos hagoyim?

It was never an issue until seats were put out for the ceremony.  Until
recently the ceremony was always outside and all the people stood through
the entire ceremony.  This is still done at many weddings.  Putting out
seats & having the ceremony inside seems to be the chukas hagoyim issue,
not standing for C&K.

Saul

RSG:
> It was never an issue until seats were put out for the ceremony
 
I'm guessing you are in Israel.
In North America, I have never seen a chuppah without seating for all.
 
Dov Weinstock   

RSG:
> The point is that the innovation is the seats & indoor weddings not
> the standing.
 
Oh, I see.

Nonetheless, in my own experience, there was a period in which
indoor weddings with seating were the norm, but no one stood for the
processional. This is why I think that the standing was in imitation
of church weddings. I suppose the same might apply to the norm of having
seating in the first place!

Dov Weinstock


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 217
***************************************

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..."