Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 222

Thu, 03 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Poppers, Michael)
• 3. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 4. Re: Shabbos King (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Zev Sero)
• 7. To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (M Cohen)
• 8. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Status of Non-Jew born to Jewish Father (T6...@aol.com)
• 10. mabul (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (hankman)
• 13. Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha?--selling/buying of kidneys (Micha Berger)

 

From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
>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.[--RHM]

I recall being at an outside chupah at least  20 years ago when there
were chairs set up and people  sat.






>>>>
 
You seem to think that "at least 20 years ago" was a long time  ago! and 
that something you saw done twenty years ago is an "old"  minhag!  
 
Actually there are numerous "ancient" minhagim that are widely known and  
practiced today, yet are even less than twenty years old  (e.g., 40 women  
baking challa for a refuah sheleimah for a sick person ,or another example, 
the  L "chiyuv" of having diagonal menorah for Chanukah).   The custom  of 
having everyone sit in neat rows for a chupa is an American custom, older  than 
20 years but less than a hundred years old.  It wasn't done in Europe,  
certainly not in eastern Europe, I'm not sure about Germany.   It  wasn't and 
still isn't done in Israel (except at my own wedding because paternal  
affection yielded to daughterly wishes) (could be maybe a few other  weddings but 
I've never seen seating at a chupa in Israel other than my  own)  Weddings 
in Europe were generally not conducted in shuls, they were  outside with 
people just crowding around.
 
Despite the fact that sitting at a chupa is a new minhag, less than a  
hundred years old, I nevertheless find the even newer minhag of standing up  for 
the chosson and kallah very annoying, because it blocks the view of 
everyone  except those lucky enough to have aisle seats.  It ruins the whole  
procession-down-the-aisle show.
 

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




_____________________
 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111102/5124460b/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V28n218, R'Micha asked:
> 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". <
and at least one member of the chevrah noted that many of us stand for at
least the last line of "L'cha Dodi" and why.  I have a possibly-related Q:
at least some of the many who stand for that last line first stand for all
of "Mizmor l'David Havu laH'" (and then sit down prior to the start of
"L'cha Dodi") -- why the custom to stand for that mizmor?  (A data [datum?
:)] point: in KAJ/"Breuer's," members of the tzibbur stand for the last
line of "L'cha Dodi" but don't stand for the noted mizmor.)  Thanks. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

At 09:38 AM 11/2/2011, R. Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> "Why not" would be because of Chukos Hagoyim. That said, another reason I
> heard (and I think I posted it last time this came up), is that we stand
> before people who are doing a mitzvah. The chosson and kallah are coming to
> do the mitzvos (to link to a recent thread) of Ki Yikach Ish Ishah and
> Piryah V'rivyah, so we stand in their honor.

R' YL:
> I think you mean that we stand before people who are *going* to do a
> mitzvah. After all, most people do not stand throughout the entire chupah,
> only when the Choson and Kallah walk down.

I stand :-) corrected.

R' YL:
> If it is indeed the case that we stand when people are going to do a
> mitzvah, then why don't we stand when the Baal Kriah gets up to lein, when
> the Baal Shachris goes to the Amud to daven, etc.?

I share your question.


R' JK:
> Why is it chukat hagoyim? I've seen lots of non-Jewish weddings on TV and
> don't remember the guests standing when the bride and groom walk in. I do
> recall that they didn't stand at William and Kate's wedding.

Yes, they did. And a quick perusal of youtube shows that it isn't uncommon
at other weddings either. That said, I am certainly no authority on
non-Jewish weddings!

R' JK: 
> As far as why we do it. ISTM that "chosson domeh lemelech" and "they are
> doing a mitzvah" are all post facto explanations. My best guess is that we
> do it as a grass roots action of giving honor to the bride and groom, not
> because they're royalty or doing a mitzvah, but because they're -- you
> guessed it, a bride and groom and today's their big day. Really simple; no
> need for any halachic lomdos.<SNIP>

Could very well be - I wouldn't be surprised!


R' JR:
> Which of course brings us to what mitzvah is the kallah (and perhaps
> chattan) on the way to do?

Piryah V'Rivyah and Ki Yikach Ish Ishah for the Chassan. For the Kallah,
maybe none?

KT,
MYG

A more definitive answer, sparked by the Avodah conversation:
http://imhm.blogspot.com/2011/09/gender-awareness-on-shabbat.html.

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 05:47:27AM -0400, I wrote:
> : I would like to propose that it rests on whether one has our girsa in
> : Shabbos 119a of "Shabbos haMalkah", with a hei, or whether R' Chanina is
> : taken as speaking of "Shabbos haMalka", with an alef. Although perhaps
> : the Rambam's girsa was further from ours...
>
> R Dr Eszra Schwat of the Machleqet Kitvei Yad of Israel's National Library
> ran with the question.
>
> See <http://imhm.blogspot.com/2011/09/gender-awareness-on-shabbat.html>
>
> The use of malkah (with a hei) or malkesa (Aramaic feminine) appears to
> correlate with which locales had access to the Bahir (with the exception
> of the Raavan).
>
> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>


-- 
*Shetir'u Batov*!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111103/69b6912e/attachment-0001.htm>

Since we're revisiting the subject, please see 
<http://imhm.blogspot.com/2011/09/gender-awareness-on-shabbat.html>,
R' Dr Ezra Schwat's researched answer on the girsa, triggered by our
last round.

I had a couple of more thoughts about RZS's proposal that perhaps it
was a nigleh vs nistar issue.

1- The gemara itself refers to Shabbos as a woman: "Bo'i kalah, bo'i
kalah". So if this Andalusian girsa is taken as more correct, the issue
RZS proposes as a gap between nigleh and nistar is not the gender of a
person as a metaphor for Shabbos in general, but only of the Shabbos as
monarch metaphor in particular.

2- Personally, I find it more likely the majority of manuscripts is
correct. But even if not the rishonim who were mequbalim did not think
it was a nigleh vs nistar issue, because they favored the girsa in the
gemara of "hamalkah". If RZS's suggestion were correct, they would
have left the Andalusian manuscript as is.

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

On 2/11/2011 9:51 PM, Poppers, Michael wrote:
> I have a possibly-related Q: at least some of the many who stand for
> that last line first stand for all of "Mizmor l'David Havu laH'" (and
> then sit down prior to the start of "L'cha Dodi") -- why the custom to
> stand for that mizmor?

AIUI, because it contains Hashem's name 18 times.

-- 
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

                    
                

RYL asked  .. If it is indeed the case that we stand when people are going
to do a 
mitzvah,  then why don't we stand when the Baal Kriah gets up to 
lein,  when the Baal Shachris goes to the Amud to daven,  etc. ?

indeed, r Yaakov kamanetsky writes that the minhag to stand for az yashir 
in pesukei d'zimra is to honor those going to give tzedah at that that time.

Mordechai cohen

As for your question, what mitva/chiuv is Baal Shachris davening, Baal Kriah
leining,  etc ?

At 09:34 AM 11/3/2011, M Cohen wrote:
>RYL asked  .. If it is indeed the case that we stand when people are going
>to do a
>mitzvah,  then why don't we stand when the Baal Kriah gets up to
>lein,  when the Baal Shachris goes to the Amud to daven,  etc. ?
>
>indeed, r Yaakov kamanetsky writes that the minhag to stand for az yashir
>in pesukei d'zimra is to honor those going to give tzedah at that that time.

Most people stand well before Az Yashir at v'yevorech Dovid. However, 
this standing is optional.


>Mordechai cohen
>
>As for your question, what mitva/chiuv is Baal Shachris davening, Baal Kriah
>leining,  etc ?

Are you saying that there is no mitzva to read the Torah on Mondays, 
Thursdays and on Shabbos?  Is there no mitzva to daven with a minyan 
and hence the person leading the davening is not doing a mitzvah?

What about someone who puts on tefillin standing?  Is he not doing a 
mitzvah, yet people do not stand for someone putting on tefillin.

YL

 
From: Allen Gerstl <acger...@hotmail.com>
>>:I have a  good friend who is a mohel.  His practice in such 
circumstances when the  parents indicate that they wish to have the child later 
converted to Judaism and  raise the child in accordance with halacha (and I assume 
that usually in such  cases the mother expresses an interest in herself 
converting in accordance with  halacha) has been to perform the mila in front of 
two Jews who together with  himself are constituted as a beit din so that 
the mila is for the purpose of  future conversion. He then writes out a teudat 
mila (a certificate of  conversion) in which he refers to the fact that the 
child is not Jewish but that  the mila was done for the purpose of future 
conversion. He explains the facts to  the parents beforehand,and emphasizes 
that tevilah with conversion before a  proper beit din is required. All of 
the latter must be done pleasantly and  diplomatically with sensitivity to the 
parents' feelings.
 
The first volume of the Yesodei Yeshurun by Rav Gedalia Felder, z"l  deals 
with questions of conversion of babies and children when they are not  
bar/bat mitzvah age..... <<
KT
Eliyahu

 
 
>>>>>
Based on the mesorah in which I was raised, I would strongly disagree with  
your friend's approach.  Converting a baby when the mother is not Jewish  
and will not be raising the baby in a Jewish, Torah home is just plain  
wrong.  Helping the Jew who married out to avoid the consequences of his  action 
is also just plain wrong.
 
The halachos regarding the conversion of children do not apply in such a  
case.  They would apply in the following two cases:  1. Where a Jewish  
couple are adopting a non-Jewish baby and 2. Where a non-Jewish woman is  
converting (with the full intention of leading a frum life and keeping the  Torah!) 
and she wishes to convert her children with her.  (Her husband  might be 
Jewish and becoming a BT or he may be a goy and the whole family is  
converting.)
 
It is totally, completely, absolutely wrong to do a bris for the child of a 
 Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, period.  
 
Doing it "for gerus" only blurs the line, indeed obliterates the line,  
between Jew and non-Jew, between in-marriage and out-marriage.  We don't go  
out of our way to hurt people's feelings but nor do we attempt to smooth over  
Judaism's rejection of out-marriage.  
 
If a frum mohel does the bris in front of a gathering of Jewish friends and 
 family, he may actually give the impression that out-marriage is  
acceptable.  Or worse, he may give the impression that the mother is Jewish  and the 
baby is Jewish, and fully part of the Jewish community.  If people  think 
the woman is Jewish when she isn't, that's a major problem.  And if  they 
think that we are now accepting the Reform position ("Anyone who thinks  he's 
Jewish, is") that's an even bigger problem.  There is just no way to  spin a 
pretend-bris for a non-Jewish baby as a good thing.
 
We have to be nice to people but we do not have to clean up Reform and  
Conservative messes.  It is not our fault that Jews marry non-Jews and it  is 
not our job to pretend that that's OK.  It's not our job to cover up for  
them and make the boo boo all better.  If we will not be true to the  Torah, 
for G-d's sake, who will?  Who will?  
 
--Toby Katz
================




_____________________  







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111103/5a8e980f/attachment-0001.htm>

<<"Down" means towards the centre of the earth.  "Up" means away from it.
Thus all of the sky is above the land, not under it.>>

This is true in modern terminology.
The gemara assumes that the sun goes under the earth at night and heats the
water in the streams

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111103/e499008c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/2/2011 5:40 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> RMB writes:
>
>    
>> But I think you're arguing in the wrong direction to make your own
>> point.
>>
>> Noach was told that everything under shamayim would be destroyed. That
>> includes all of earth no matter which homonym is intended by "shamayim"
>> here. Your ability to raise problems is tangential, unless you can
>> prove
>> that "shamayim" has yet another meaning that is yet smaller.
>>      
> The position I have been consistently arguing is that kol haaretz and kol
> hashamayim are terms that are most logically to be understood in the way
> that Noach and the other members of the dor hamabul would have understood
> them (and did understand them, or refused to believe them).  That excludes
> anything completely out of their ken, like planets and galaxies from either
> definition, but also Australia and England and other places that to them did
> not exist. If you asked the dor hamabul for a definition of kol haaretz, you
> would not get any references to Australia.

But again, it's the narrative that says the whole world is going to be 
flooded.  If you take that to mean "the whole world that we knew about 
at the time", you might as well do the same thing with Genesis 1:1 and 
say Hashem only created the Middle East.  It stands to reason that the 
word is used the same way in both places.

Lisa

R?tn CL wrote:

My comment is thus that if you want to insert our definition of kol haaretz, then you
should be doing so properly, and including everything that we now understand
as kol haaretz, including the moon, otherwise you are arbitrarily stopping
the process - you are not prepared to define it the way the dor hamabul
would have defined it, but neither are you (when pushed) prepared to define
it the way we now understand it to be.

CM notes:

I hear your argument (as well as your opposition?s) but I think the point
where you drag the moon into your logic the argument becomes specious. I
would restrict the point to the kadur ha?aretz and not argue that your
opponents must perforce accept a flood on the moon by their interpretation.
I do not think this is an ?arbitrary? difference (between the moon and
Australia) as you argued.

R?tn LL wrote:

If Pangaea hadn't yet split up, this wouldn't be an issue.

CM notes:

Pangaea is totally irrelevant, since if it existed at all it was in a time
frame far removed by hundreds (~250M) of millions and not relevant to our
time frame circa a mere 4000 years ago.

RZS wrote:

Malbim understands this to mean that seasons didn't exist before the
mabul. The earth's axis was perpendicular to the ecliptic, so each
place's climate was steady. Rain fell every forty years, and the earth
produced enough food to last until the next rain. 

CM notes:

The 40 year rain cycle prior to Mabul you mention (quoting the Malbim)
would raise difficulties in the science of dendrochronology where such a 40
year cycle would be quite apparent but is not noted anywhere in the
literature that I have seen. Anchored chronologies go back to well before
the Mabul. See wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.o
rg/wiki/Dendrochronology.

Also suggesting the Mabul coincided with (or caused) (or was somehow the
mechanism causing the Mabul) a huge shift in the axis of the Earth is
something for which scientific geologic (or any other) evidence is lacking
for that period. Furthermore, such a shift in global climate would also
have major repercussions in the oceans and its flora and fauna causing
major die outs as tropical fauna could not adapt quickly enough to the
climate of (nouveau) polar climates etc, etc. Torah tells us the fish were
not affected by the Mabul and science shows no such  major oceanic die outs
in that time frame that I am aware of. I wonder if Immanuel Velikovsky ever
saw this Malbim?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111103/82c19f99/attachment-0001.htm>

What about selling organ futures?

The seller (the word "donor" is no longer appropriate) is paid at the time
of signing for the use of their organ upon death, if usable. Like a real
futures trade, there is risk involved -- e.g. many of the kidneys the bank
buys would be from people whose kidneys are unusable by the time they die.

My problem isn't with organ sales, though. It's with moving medicine from
rules of triage to market forces. I don't see any reason to distinguish
between third parties -- whether it's the communal account or someone
who wants to go into organ brokering. "Verapo yerapei" is special reshus
HQBH gives us to seek cures, it's not the usual "veqivshuha" or "lasheves
yatzrah".

R' Shabsi Rappaport has an interesting article on (title translated)
Priority in the Allocation of Public Resources in Medicine at
<http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/ASSIA/ASSIA7/R007094.asp>.
OTOH, RZS appears to believe that public resources are a different issue
than brokering resources that never reach the public pool.

See RMF's (IM CM 2:73.2) and RSZA's (Nishmat Avraham YD pg 156) where
they each say that if two patients arrive at the same time, the one with
a better chance at chayei olam goes first; but if you are already caring
for someone capable only of chayei sha'ah, you can't stop treating him
to make time for the chayei olam. When RSZA says that the mishnah in
Horios can't be implemented today (as RJR cited), he doesn't mean that
therefore there are no halakhos of triage.

I also see that RJR cave a 2 part miniseries titled "Women and Children
First - Halachic Triage, Western Ethic, Neither or Both? at AABJ&D (West
Orange). If it's the same RJR as ours (CC-ed), maybe he could chime in?

I also found a list by R' Ari Kahn of sources for a course on medical
ethics
http://www.biu.ac.il/Dean/course%20description/Topics
_in_Contemporary_Halachic_Issues.doc
which includes:
    1. Two people in a Desert with one cup of water: Bava Metzhia 62a,
    ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? 153

    2. Triage: Fred Rosner "The Rationing of Medical Care" The Journal
    of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Volume 6, pg. 21, ??? ????? 235
    (Ransoming captives) Barry Freundel "Health care and Tikkun olam"
    in Tikkun Olam 309-337

    3. Priorities in Treatment: [Weinberger in Emek Halacha 109-117]

    4. Transplants: Bleich J. David "Contemporary Halakhic Problems"
    volume 1, chapter 16 page 372. Volume 4 page 316 "Of Cerebral,
    Respiratory, and Cardiac Death" Reuven Fink "Halachic Aspects of Organ
    Transplantation" The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society,
    Volume 5, page 45, Fred Rosner, Moshe Tendler "Determining the Time
    of Death" The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Volume
    17, page 14. Herschel Shachter "Determining the Time of Death"
    The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Volume 17, pg. 32,
    Aharon Soloveichik "Determining the Time of Death" The Journal
    of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Volume 17, page 41. ??? ?????
    374-397, "???? ??? ???" ???? ????????
So, I'm CC-ing RADK as well.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 222
***************************************

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..."