Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 218

Tue, 01 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New York man pleads guilty to selling Israeli human organs (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Harry Maryles)
• 5. standing for a Chattan and Kallah (Ari Kahn)
• 6. Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New York man pleads guilty to selling Israeli human organs (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 7. Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New York man pleads guilty to selling Israeli human organs (harchinam)
• 8. Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New York man pleads guilty to selling Israeli human organs (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Isaac Balbin)
• 11. The Pursuit of Truth: Thoughts on Parashat Lekh Lekha, November 5, 2011 (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: purpose of creation?? varous opinions?? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Micha Berger)

REMT and RSM also noted here a while back that originally people sat
when the chasan and kallah came in. Admittedly, we can view that as a
transition period, not long enough to define a minhag. I don't know.

However, li nir'eh that now that it's de rigeur, and people associated it
with "chasan domeh lemelekh", refraining from standing makes a statement,
not joining in on the hanhagah. It seems to be a trivial way to contribute
to simchas chasan vekallah. So why not?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Found on aish.com, a quote from R' Yaakov Weiner, "Ye Shall Surely Heal:
medical ethics from a Halachic perspective", pg 155, J-m Ctr for Research,
1995:
    One may sell his organs to save a life, if it causes no halachic risk
    to the donor's life. This would not be subject to the prohibition of
    injuring oneself, because selling the organ is seen as a great need to
    save life and also because saving a life is a mitzvah which suspends
    all others. If however a lifesaving situation does not obtain, for
    example, selling organs to a bank or for research purposes, then doing
    so is prohibited. But if the motivation for his selling the organ
    could be defined as a great need (e.g., avoiding bankruptcy with its
    accompanying legal and social repercussions), it would be permitted.

IM CM 1:103 permits selling one's blood.

Admittedly this is not the same case as our question. However, it would
seem to me that if getting paid is itself not a problem, the only question
would be how the sellers were recruited. Did anyone get pressured into
the sale? Were the barred from more common avenues of receiving tzedaqah?

In the sting operation, the broker currently in the news asked for
$160,000 profit on a kidney for which the seller (a poor Jew in a
financial crisis) only made $10,000.

The above also doesn't deal with the poor person who dies once the
recipient market is shifted to the wealthy.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:17:09PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: How do you translate Gen 7:23 ...
: Vayimach et kol hayekum asher al pnei haadama...?

"... everything that stood upon the face of the earth [of the flooded
region]." Not that /I/ would translate it that way, just pointing out
one could. (IIRC from earlier iterations, RnCL did.)

I think harder to translate as referring to a less-than-global event
would be 6:17, "... leshacheis kol basar acher bo ruach chayim mitachas
hashamayim; kol asher ba'aretz yigvah."

Similarly 7:19, "kol heharim hagevohim *asher tachas kol hashamayim*".

"Mitachas hashamayim" and moreso "kol hashamayim" lack the ambiguity
of whether eretz or adamah refers to the whole world, a piece of it,
a clump of dirt, etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Saul Guberman <saulguber...@gmail.com> wrote:


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.
-------------------------------------------------
?
Standing up for the bride?is actaully?the custom in non Jewish weddings. The audience always stands for the bride as she walks down the aisle. 
?
You know what they say... Azoi?vei's christel zich - yiddel't zich. 
?
I also find it ironic that most people in the audience do not stand up for
any of the Z'kenim that walk down the aisle (I do). But when the Chasan and
Kalla walk down the aisle almost everyone who does. I do not recall that
ever being the case in the past. I don't know when this new minhag caught
on but now it seems like the universal practice. 
?
I believe it is based on the idea that a Chasan is Domeh L'Melech. And of
course one would rise out of respct for a king or his queen (i.e. the
Kallah). But being 'Domeh L'Melech' does not make you a Melech with all the
rights and privileiges. Personally I think it is a minhag Shtus. But I do
it anyway since I do not wnat to be Poresh Min HaTzibur.
?
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/20111101/e845a4cf/attachment-0001.htm>

Re: [Avodah] To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and
       Kallah

I once asked this to Rav Zalman Nechmya Goldberg - "Is there a source to
stand for a chattan or kallah when they make their way to the chppah?" he
said "yes, look at the commentary of the RA MBartenura (and the Tiferes
Yisroel) to the MIshna of Bikurim 3:3.

Ari Kahn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111101/89bfe973/attachment-0001.htm>

"The main down side I can see under these assumed circumstances is whether
one is permitted to risk one?s life to save another (one might consider the
imminence of the risk to life and in fact if there is any at all in some
cases) which is an issue well elaborated upon in the halachic literature."

Isn't there another downside (assuming full consent, no coercion etc. which
is an assumption that very well might not be justified); i.e., that rich
people whose condition is not as serious as that of poor people will live
and the poor people will die?  Take this example: doctors say rich person
should live at least three more years with dialysis; poor person will die
within a month.  Is it just/moral/halachically permissible (three possibly
differing/conflicting standards) for the rich person to get the transplant
and the poor person to die, when, if the poor person got the transplant,
both of them might have lived (albeit the rich person having to undergo
additional dialysis)?

Joseph Kaplan   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111101/eae1865f/attachment-0001.htm>

>
> Isn't there another downside (assuming full consent, no coercion etc.
> which is an assumption that very well might not be justified); i.e., that
> rich people whose condition is not as serious as that of poor people will
> live and the poor people will die?  Take this example: doctors say rich
> person should live at least three more years with dialysis; poor person
> will die within a month.  Is it just/moral/halachically permissible (three
> possibly differing/conflicting standards) for the rich person to get the
> transplant and the poor person to die, when, if the poor person got the
> transplant, both of them might have lived (albeit the rich person having to
> undergo additional dialysis)?
>

You have a point, but I don't think it is as simple as that. Kidney
donation is voluntary [at least if you don't live in China :-(] and so the
person that would donate a kidney to the rich man because he desperately
needs the money might never donate to the poor person and so both would die
in that case [if there were no other people willing to donate]. At least if
a person donated because he was motivated by money so one of the cholim
would live.

Your argument above is the reason why there are lists that are supposedly
based on medical need, so that the sickest person gets the first organ
donated and those who can wait must wait, but this method does not
guarantee that people who can donate will do so.

*** Rena
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111101/3b11479b/attachment-0001.htm>

So AISI, there are two active questions:

1- Assuming there is no other coersion, is it mutar you pay people to
sell their organs to what is now the general donor pool? If mutar, is
it a mitzvah?

2- What about the halakhos of triage? This is a problem in general... The
rules in the last mishnah in Horios would be a hard sell. Does anyone
know what is done in Laniado or Shaarei Tzedeq? Do we ignore Horios
because now we can better assess how to maximize the expected number of
lives saved? Do we invoke mishum eivah and the saving of future lives?

But whichever rules of triage are nog'im lemaaseh, may one buy an organ
in order to facilitate a violation of the rules of triage?

If anyone has an answer to either organ selling question, or to
my halachic quesrtion about triage -- both in general and how it is
pasqened in hospitals that try to comply to the din -- I would greatly
appreciate it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

On 1/11/2011 11:05 AM, Dov Weinstock 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?

AFAIK sitting at a chuppah is itself a recent innovation, so naturally
standing for the C&K is also an innovation.

-- 
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

                    
                

As I recall, the Rav, RYBS, was quite literal in treating the C&K as Melech and Malka, thereby necessitating standing.
For this reason, he even refused to be Mesader Kiddushin for a C who wore a straw hat, as this was not appropriate
for a Melech.

In Melbourne, people are casual about what they wear at a Chuppa given the Chuppa usually takes place on a Sunday
3-4 hours before the Chassuna (and going to the Hall). Rabonim who come from outside Australia have always remarked that
it's not appropriate to dress casually in the presence of an M&M. Then again, Queen Elizabeth was just in Melbourne, and 
I'm not sure that those who lined the streets to see her got dressed up for the occasion. Notably, though, those who were
in private audience or who were officially involved, were dressed to the nines (even with tznius, and many women wore hats).

There is a question about precisely when the C&K become M&M though in respect of standing up.

 From http://www.jewishideas.org/print/783

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

Some years ago, I had a conversation with a 
Hassidic Jew who assured me that his Rebbe never 
committed any sins. He stated with certainty that 
his Rebbe was endowed with a grand and holy soul, 
far superior to the soul of any other people.

When I pointed out to him that even Moses 
committed sins, he flatly denied that this was 
so. I reminded him that the Torah itself reports 
Moses?s shortcomings. He said: You do not 
understand the Torah! It is impossible that Moses 
could have done anything wrong. He was perfect in every way.

The conversation came to an end, with both of us 
unhappy with the result. He felt I did not 
demonstrate enough faith in the perfection of 
saintly personalities, and I felt he was guilty 
of distorting the Torah?s words and distorting 
the reality of the human condition.

This conversation came to mind recently when I 
received an email from a colleague, in which he 
included some important passages by Rabbi Samson 
Raphael Hirsch. The comments related specifically 
to stories reported in Parashat Lekh Lekha?but 
Rabbi Hirsch?s point is of general relevance to 
our study of Torah?and to our evaluation of saintly individuals.

The Torah relates various problematic narratives 
about Abraham.  For example, when going to Egypt, 
Abraham feared that the Egyptians would murder 
him and take his wife Sarah. Abraham told Sarah 
to say she was his sister, rather than his wife. 
In spite of (or because of!) this deception, 
Sarah was taken to Pharaoh. Abraham was given 
rewards and he thrived in Egypt. When God 
punished Pharaoh and when Pharaoh realized that 
Sarah was really Abraham?s wife, Pharaoh 
expressed outrage to Abraham over the deception. 
Pharaoh expelled Abraham and Sarah, who left Pharaoh?s domain with much wealth.

This story surely does not cast Abraham in a good 
light. He asked his wife to participate in a 
deception. He let his wife be taken by the 
Egyptians. He reaped financial rewards while his 
wife was in captivity in Pharaoh?s house.

Rabbi Hirsch makes a profoundly important point: 
?The Torah does not attempt to hide from us the 
faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men, 
and precisely thereby it places the stamp of 
credibility upon the happenings it relates. The 
fact that we are told about their faults and 
weaknesses does not detract from our great men. 
Indeed, it adds to their stature and makes their 
life stories even more instructive. Had they all 
been portrayed to us as models of perfection we 
would have believed that they had been endowed 
with a higher nature not give to us to attain. 
Had they been presented to us free of human 
passions and inner conflicts, their nature would 
seem to us merely the result of a loftier 
predisposition, not a product of their personal 
merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate.?

Rabbi Hirsch goes on to say that ?we must never 
attempt to whitewash the spiritual and moral 
heroes of our past. They are not in need of our 
apologetics, nor would they tolerate such 
attempts on our part. Truth is the seal of our 
Word of God, and truthfulness is the distinctive 
characteristic also of all its genuinely great teachers and commentators.?

Our great biblical heroes, as well as our great 
spiritual heroes of all generations, were real 
human beings, not plaster saints.  They had real 
feelings, real conflicts. Many times they 
performed admirably; on some occasions they fell 
short.  To suggest that anyone is 
?perfect??totally devoid of sin and error?is to 
misrepresent that person and to misrepresent truth.

There is a popular genre of ?religious 
literature? that presents biographies of biblical 
and later religious luminaries as paragons of 
virtue, totally devoid of sin and inner conflict. 
In fact, such books are not authentic 
biographies, because they describe their heroes 
in an untruthful way. These personalities are 
drawn in such superlative terms, that readers 
will find it exceedingly difficult to identify with them or to emulate them.

There is an opposite tendency in some circles to 
point to every flaw and sin of our spiritual 
heroes, and to undermine their credibility as 
religious models. Our prophets and teachers are 
presented as though devoid of higher spiritual and moral qualities.

Just as it is false to overstate the perfection 
of our heroes, so it is false to undervalue their 
spiritual achievements. Rather, we must study 
their lives honestly, recognizing that these are 
remarkable individuals who reached great 
heights?and who had to struggle mightily to 
attain their levels of religious insight and 
righteousness.  Their failings can be as instructive to us as their successes.

Just as Truth is the seal of the Word of God, so 
is the pursuit of Truth the proper objective of 
all students of Torah and Jewish tradition.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111101/f9374070/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:41:37AM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote:
: As I recall, the Rav, RYBS, was quite literal in treating the C&K as
: Melech and Malka, thereby necessitating standing.

Why is it that everyone stands for the chasan and kallah at a wedding,
but so few of us have a minhag to stand for Lekha Dodi? There we have
a kalah, and in some nusachos, she is identified with "Shabbas Malkesa".

(I just noticed the femanine form, as opposed to the girsa in shas
we discussed in the past that had "Shabbos Malka", with an alef, in the
masculine.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Harvey Benton quoted someone
from another forum:
: Very well said, thank you _______. The big difference between 
: Torah and Esther Hicks is that she believes we are literally the hands 
: of god, amplifying the universe, while Torah tells us that God does not 
: need any part of His creation to do His work.?

I would say the contributor is 180 deg wrong.

HBashem created us in order to share with us His Good. The greatest Good
is to be betzelem E-lokim. And thus, Hashem left the world incomplete, so
that we wouldn't be passive recipients living in received joy. Rather, He
left room in creation for us to join with Him in partnership in perfecting
our own ability to receive good and share that good to others. As R' Shimon
Shkop put it
    Yisbarakh haBorei veyis'alah yaYotzeir,
    Who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure",
    and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire
    should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses,
    now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For
    everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it
    be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too
    His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk
    in His Ways" (Devarim 28:9) that we, the select of what He made --
    should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and
    spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities.

Hashem doesn't need us to do His work. However, Hashem wanted to bestow
upon us the greatest Good, which is to do His work. We, in the image
of the Creator, are happier when enjoying Good we made ourselves than
simply receiving it as do the animals and angels.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 1/11/2011 6:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Why is it that everyone stands for the chasan and kallah at a wedding,
> but so few of us have a minhag to stand for Lekha Dodi? There we have
> a kalah, and in some nusachos, she is identified with "Shabbas Malkesa".

Surely everyone stands at least for the last verse, where she's welcomed
in.


> (I just noticed the femanine form, as opposed to the girsa in shas
> we discussed in the past that had "Shabbos Malka", with an alef, in the
> masculine.)

That's because it's based on kabalah.

-- 
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, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:20:20PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 1/11/2011 6:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Why is it that everyone stands for the chasan and kallah at a wedding,
>> but so few of us have a minhag to stand for Lekha Dodi? There we have
>> a kalah, and in some nusachos, she is identified with "Shabbas Malkesa".

> Surely everyone stands at least for the last verse, where she's welcomed
> in.

But if you stand for a regular kallah, why not for an idiomatic kallah
who is explicitly called a malkesa? She is the same kalah/malkesah in
the first verse as when we explicitly say do on the first.

>> (I just noticed the femanine form, as opposed to the girsa in shas
>> we discussed in the past that had "Shabbos Malka", with an alef, in the
>> masculine.)

> That's because it's based on kabalah.

Are you okay saying the gemara is inconsistent with qabbalah? I find
that a surprising thing for a chassid to be comfortable with. Or does
the qabbalah indicate the gemara originally was "malkah" with a hei?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 218
***************************************

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..."