Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 227

Sun, 06 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Liron Kopinsky)
• 2. What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Meir Rabi)
• 3. Parshat Lech Lecha Question (Liron Kopinsky)
• 4. RSRH on Kings (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Subject: Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the kishus planted in an otsits sh???aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz- (hankman)
• 6. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the kishus planted in an otsits sh???aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz- (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Parshat Lech Lecha Question (Zev Sero)
• 11. Subject: Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha? (hankman)
• 12. Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the the kishus planted in an otsits sh?aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz - is (hankman)
• 13. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Zev Sero)

On Nov 6, 2011 1:33 AM, "Meir Rabi" <meir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> AAAH ran to save Lot. He engaged in battle against well trained soldiers
in order to save Lot.
> Are we permitted/obligated to endanger the lives of many in order to save
the life of an individual?
> Was he relying on the assumption that he had the element of surprise and
that they were war weary?
>
> The ShAharon quotes a Zohar that in fact AAAH went to redeem Lot with $$
but when he noted that he was accompanied by invincible angels he engaged
in battle instead.

Maybe AA knew he had enough zechut to win but was afraid he used it all up
in the war, hence Hashem's promise following.

Kol tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/d7ffc7bd/attachment-0001.htm>

R Zev S suggests that we are permitted to go to war even if there is no
danger to life, just for economic gain.  Kal vachomer to save somebody.

I imagine R Zev is alluding to the Gem, that Dovid HaMelech directed his
army to extend their hand to the booty of war when the ministers complained
that there was not adequate means to feed the people.

I believe the Peshat is that these were nations or clans that were already
worthy of being the objects of attack due to safety concerns, but were not
urgently so and thus were on the back burner so to speak.

We are not permitted to send a dozen people into a stormy sea to rescue one
individual when the risks of losing the saviours is unreasonable, so it is
difficult to see how we can permit initiating a war just to earn a few
dollars.

So the question remains: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people to
save Lot?

-- 

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/e60ad7ad/attachment-0001.htm>

I was learning through the Chizkuni on the brit bein habetarim (
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39852&;st=&pgnum=22 pasuk zayin)
over shabbat and I'm having trouble figuring out the chronology he is
describing.

He says that Avraham avinu came to c'naan 5 years prior to "lech lecha"
and brit bein habetarim happened then, when he was 70 years old. He then
says that the war with the 4 kings and the 5 kings happened when Avraham
was 74 or 75. Lech Lecha was when Avraham was 75.

What I'm trying to figure out is when the Chizkuni says "the war was when
Avraham was 74 or 75" does he mean that really it happened after Lech
Lecha, when Avraham was 75, and that the timing allows for that, or does he
assume that the war could have happened before Lech Lecha. If it happened
before Lech Lecha, how could Avraham and Lot have already separated with
Avraham living in Elonei Mamrei?

I had been thinking about the implications of the war being before Avraham
went down to Mitzrayim - refusing anything from Melech S'dom even though he
wasn't rich from Mitzrayim yet - but I can't figure out how that could work
in the pesukim.


A second small question: does anyone know how long Avraham Avinu was in
Mitzrayim for? If the war was when Avraham was 75, then he had a very busy
year. Leave Charan, go to Israel, go to Egypt, leave Egypt (suddenly rich),
split with Lot, go to Elonei Mamrei, win the war in Damascus... Really
racking up the frequent flier miles.

Kol Tuv,

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/025f2796/attachment-0001.htm>

Below are some selections from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 14:1

It came to pass in the days of Amrafel king of 
Shin?ar, Aryoch king of Ellasar, Kedorla?omer 
king of Eilam, and Tid?al king of Goyim.

Here we have the first historical account of kings and their wars. Let
us consider the reality that is described here ? apparently to give us a
better understanding of the mission of Avraham and his people.

The system of government introduced by Nimrod was quick to bear
fruit.

<Snip>

His system was to exploit the collective energies of his nation for his
own selfish ends, sacrificing the happiness of the individual on the altar
of national honor. Here we find this system in full flower. We read here
a history not of nations but of kings. In as small an area as the Jordan
Valley, no fewer than five kings reigned (v. 2)! Here we have the beginnings
of monarchy. Each city has its own king. Later, in the time of
Yehoshua, we find thirty-one kings in the small land of Israel! The other
rulers (v. 1) were more formidable sovereigns, reigning over entire countries
and provinces such as Shin?ar (Bavel), Eilam (Madai), and also
Goyim, a name that indicates several nations, not merely one. The better
known of these kingdoms, Bavel and Madai, were distant from Eretz
Yisrael, yet the kings of Eretz Yisrael were subject to Kedorla?omer for
twelve years. Kedorla?omer was already a king of kings.

Let us now see what form kingship actually assumed in the affluent
?cities of the plain.? Each of these cities considered it necessary to have
a king of its own, an outlook that may have resulted from wealth and
affluence.

There are nations that avoid thinking for themselves and unload
their concerns onto the head of the king. This occurs particularly in
nations where the citizens are busily preoccupied with themselves. People
who pursue comfort and wealth and ignore the idealistic interests of
their community are ready to sacrifice rights and assets ? so long as
they are ?excused from thinking.? Moreover, it is difficult to be king
over a poor people. People who have little to gain and nothing to lose
are not easily frightened or enticed into obedience.

The foregoing explains why every city in the luxuriant Jordan plain
had its own king. The people thus freed themselves from the burden
of thinking about and attending to the needs of the community. For
the same reason, these kings, in turn, agreed to become vassals to the
powerful ruler of another land; they were all avdei avodim, as Noach had
foreseen about the descendants of Cham! They willingly paid yearly
tribute as the price for peace and security, so as to rule and enjoy royal
status in their own lands.

<Snip>

A universal truth was revealed here to Avraham: Affluence enslaves
nations ? from within and from without. <Snip> Man can be truly
free ? inwardly and outwardly ? only if he submits to the rule of the
moral law (see Commentary above, 9:27).

Yet another truth was revealed here to Avraham. He came face to
face with a reality that concerned his people in particular. In the land
promised to him as the future homeland of his people, the first trial
he faced was famine, and the second was war! The land does not, by
its very nature, provide material prosperity and political independence.
In both these respects, the land of Israel is the antithesis of Egypt. The
land is dependent on heaven for its fertility, and its political position
is one of dependence; it cannot offer resistance to a foreign invader. In
and of itself, the land of Israel is prone to famine and political dependence.
Since it is situated at the crossroads where Europe, Asia and Africa meet,
all the major wars that have shaken the world have inflicted severe
damage upon it.

But precisely for this reason it was chosen. Had Israel built a holy life
on this land, no foe would have dared to approach its borders. Three
times each year the borders of the land would have been left undefended
and vulnerable, yet no one would have covetingly touched the land (see
Shemos 34:24). All the malchuyos of the world would have fought one an-
other and passed near Israel?s land, but no sword would have entered
this most prosperous yet most defenseless of lands

<Snip>

To the people of Israel, who are destined to live in the environs of
the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah, the events described in these verses
serve as a warning: If there is no countervailing moral force, abundance
and luxury are the natural enemies of freedom. Only if they devote
themselves to the Torah with all their might will the people of Israel
enjoy freedom and independence in this land. A rich land ?flowing with
milk and honey? tends to produce a population of weaklings. Only
submission to the yoke of the Torah guarantees freedom and independence.
Every field in Eretz Yisrael should bear the imprint of the Torah?s
reign (klayim), and this applies with special stringency to viniculture, the
cultivation of the plant most symbolic of plenty and luxury.
Everywhere, and at all times, let this warning be heard: Only
on the basis of the Torah will Israel flourish; if it throws off the yoke
of the Torah, Israel will go to physical and social ruin.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/7414c270/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
"Leaves me unsatisfied" is not proof that an idea is false.

We live in an era where rapid scientific and engineering progress has
been going on for so long that poeple take it for granted. Coginitive
Man and his quest to "umil'u es haaretz *vekivshuha" is so good at
controlling and mastering his environment, we see the whole world
through his eyes.

This assumption that everything must be scientific is why the Man of
Faith is lonelier today than ever before.

I think the zeitgeist is broken, and misleading you into seeking answers
to questions that aren't real.

CM responds:

I am not talking about being scientific, but I am expecting for truth to
prevail in Torah to the best ability. I do look to science for our best
notion of what the factual truth may be. (Understanding that some sciences
are much better than others at being at or close to the truth than others,
and that from time to time science learns some new tricks as well). Even
with possible new scientific discoveries, it is fairly clear that much of
modern science is here to stay and if any adjustments will be made they
will be at the margins of current thought. If one believes Chazal to be
infallible in matters of science then these questions are very real. If on
the other hand one assumes that Chazal used the best scientific information
available at their time then all the questions are not real and fall away.

RMB wrote:

Think about how you think about a plant. Most of the water comes from
under it, and then there is also water from elsewhere. Ther issue isn't
one of majority (a measurably quantity) but of iqar (what people consider
essential).

CM responds:

How I think about it does not matter. I think the question of ?majority? vs
?iqar (what people consider essential)? as you put it is a novel idea of
your invention, one I do not subscribe to. And I am not sure the average
person thinks the way you suppose in any case. Even today, the average
person, who has had no exposure to botany 101, would not assume any yunika
through the leaves from the atmosphere ?just via the roots, kal vechomer
for the average person bimay Chazal (but clearly Chazal where already aware
that the leaves play a role and are involved in the nutrition of the plant
? even if this is from the sun and atmosphere and not from the earth via
the air.)

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/fe4bcfae/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/11/2011 10:48 PM, Meir Rabi wrote:
> R Zev S suggests that we are permitted to go to war even if there is no danger to life, just for economic gain.  Kal vachomer to save somebody.
>
> I imagine R Zev is alluding to the Gem, that Dovid HaMelech directed
> his army to extend their hand to the booty of war when the ministers
> complained that there was not adequate means to feed the people.
>
> I believe the Peshat is that these were nations or clans that were
> already worthy of being the objects of attack due to safety concerns,
> but were not urgently so and thus were on the back burner so to speak.
>

On the contrary, the halacha explicitly permits "milchemet reshut".
And the gemara says that a kingdom that wipes out a sixth of the world's
population in a war is within its rights.

-- 
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 Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 10:07:44AM -0500, hankman wrote:
:> This assumption that everything must be scientific is why the Man of
:> Faith is lonelier today than ever before.

:> I think the zeitgeist is broken, and misleading you into seeking answers
:> to questions that aren't real.

: CM responds:

: I am not talking about being scientific, but I am expecting for truth
: to prevail in Torah to the best ability. I do look to science for our
: best notion of what the factual truth may be. (Understanding that some
: sciences are much better than others at being at or close to the truth
: than others, and that from time to time science learns some new tricks as
: well)...

That's called being scientific.

...
: How I think about it does not matter...

Again, why would halakhah care about what is, ie reality as science can
explain it? It's job is to change people, and thus really only should
care about reality as people can relate to it. Things we know are true but
could never experience might be "factual truth", but do nothing to shape
people, to accomplish halakhah's goals. Maggot eggs and microscopic
crustacians have no mamashus.

Birkhas haChamah is set to 365-1/4 day years, even though we knew tekufas
R' Adda was a more accurate estimate of the solar year. There are
numerous examples of chazal knowingly ignoring scientific accuracy in
facor of commonsensical notions of reality.

So why would we think things are any different when they didn't know
they weren't being scientifically accurate?

: I am not sure the average person thinks the way you suppose in any
: case. Even today, the average person, who has had no exposure to botany
: 101, would not assume any yunika through the leaves from the atmosphere
: ???just via the roots, kal vechomer for the average person bimay Chazal
: (but clearly Chazal where already aware that the leaves play a role and
: are involved in the nutrition of the plant ??? even if this is from the
: sun and atmosphere and not from the earth via the air.)

People who take botany 101 still don't have different gut reactions
than the rest of us. Just at it was proven that people who know thrown
objects follow parabolic trajectories -- even professional ballplayers
who both know this AND practice catching every day -- still track objects
as though they fall vertically once they start falling. Middos aren't
intellectual excercises.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:38:59AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On the contrary, the halacha explicitly permits "milchemet reshut".
> And the gemara says that a kingdom that wipes out a sixth of the world's
> population in a war is within its rights.

A milchemes reshus isn't just for finances, though.

In David haMelekh's case, they weren't just stealing the straw, they
were thereby threatening the rule of law in a boarder city and thus
nibbling at the edges of his sovereignty. A country has to be sound.
The other example we have from David haMelekh is his conquering Suria.
In neither case was it simply about money.

There is a machloqes tannaim as to whether a preemptive war is a milkhemes
mitzvah, or a milkhemes reshus that happens to be compelling for other
reasons. Difference only being whether a chasan and kallah are drafted.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Also, as we see later, it didn't cross Avraham's mind that Lot was the
only good person in the cities of the plane.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 6/11/2011 1:41 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> I was learning through the Chizkuni on the brit bein habetarim (http://hebre
> wbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39852&;st=&pgnum=22 <http://hebre
> wbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39852&;st=&pgnum=22> pasuk
> zayin) over shabbat and I'm having trouble figuring out the chronology
> he is describing.

This is the standard chronology, given by the Seder Olam.  It's very
difficult to read into the chumash, but it's almost muchrach.  *Something*
had to have happened 430 years before Yetzias Mitzrayim.


> He says that Avraham avinu came to c'naan 5 years prior to "lech lecha"
> and brit bein habetarim happened then, when he was 70 years old. He then
> says that the war with the 4 kings and the 5 kings happened when Avraham
> was 74 or 75.

I haven't seen Seder Olam inside, but Tosfos (Brochos 7b) says he must
have been 73, because the four older cities of the plain were founded
immediately after the migdal, served Kedorlaomer for 12 years, rebelled
for 13, and the next year was the war.  Then they lived in peace for 26
years and were destroyed when Avraham was 99.  Thus he must have been 73
at the time of the war.


> What I'm trying to figure out is when the Chizkuni says "the war was when
> Avraham was 74 or 75" does he mean that really it happened after Lech
> Lecha, when Avraham was 75, and that the timing allows for that, or does
> he assume that the war could have happened before Lech Lecha.

It must have done.

> If it happened before Lech Lecha, how could Avraham and Lot have already
> separated with Avraham living in Elonei Mamrei?

The easiest places to put the two time jumps are at shlishi and shishi.
That might explain why these breaks are at those places, in the middle
of parshios.  If this is so, then Lot's riches did not come from Mitzrayim.
By the time they went down to Mitzrayim they were already rich, and thus
the sort of good family from which a queen could be taken.


-- 
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

                    
                

RAM wrote:
But that's not really relevant to the kidney question, because even if the
poor person is in front of me, and is truly omeid lamus, even pikuach
nefesh is not enough to force me to donate my kidney. Because of the danger
of the surgery, I am never obligated to donate it. Even if I have decided
to risk the surgery, and give the kidney to A or to B, I am never forced to
do so, as I can always change my mind entirely. Therefore, I would think
that since it is ultimately voluntary, I can make whatever deals I wish.

But here's an interesting twist: Suppose I do offer my kidney to a specific
person for whatever reason, financial or not. As I wrote, since it is
voluntary, I should be able to designate whichever recipient my whim
prefers. If I am correct to this point, here's a question: Once the kidney
has been removed, are the surgeons allowed - or perhaps even required - to
override my directive, and implant it in the patient who is halachically
more entitled? We're dealing with dinei nefashos here, and can't be
bothered with trifles like who actually owns this kidney - if anyone indeed
owns it at all! (Citation: "One is not the owner of his own body.")

CM asks:

If one accepts that one is free to give away his kidney just like he can
give away one?s possessions then the question really becomes if I have sold
my kidney (with all the appropriate kinyanim) to someone (whether he is to
be a transplant recipient or even if he is just an organ broker doing this
just for profit) could such a sale be enforced by beis din once it has been
made? IOW has the spare kidney been reduced to a mere possession?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/2eb1f852/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS wrote:

And what does a plant get in an otzitz nokuv? How does the power in the
earth jump the gap between the ground and the hole at the bottom of the
pot? And in what way do plants in holed pots grow better than those in
unholed ones?

CM responds:

There are 2 cases of otsits nakuf both treated the same in halacha if I am
not mistaken, 1) where it is directly on the ground and 2) where it is in
the air above the ground. In case 1) I imagine the leichus with the
contained nutrieints would just climb a few more inches in earth through
the hole, but in case 2) I agree you with you the question would apply.

RZS wrote:

AIUI the theory in those days was that the power to grow comes from the
earth. When you plant a seed it was thought to rot completely, so that
none of it was left, and then the power of growth that is in the earth
produces a new plant that follows the template of the seed it was given.
I'm not sure how they understood why plants can grow in unholed pots.
And I'm pretty sure they'd have thought hydroponics impossible.


CM reponds:

Perhaps they believed that any (clump of) earth had the power of growth not
just ?the? Earth, but the halachic difference lay in whether it was
considered mechubor to ?the? Earth or not.

Btw, you may have the unholy but not the ?unholed.? 

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/8505af8c/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/8505af8c/attachment-0001.png>

On 6/11/2011 11:42 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:38:59AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> >  On the contrary, the halacha explicitly permits "milchemet reshut".
>> >  And the gemara says that a kingdom that wipes out a sixth of the world's
>> >  population in a war is within its rights.

> A milchemes reshus isn't just for finances, though.

Sure it is.  "Milchemes horeshus is a war that he wages with other
nations to expand Israel's border and to increase his greatness and
fame."  A war fought when there's an actual invasion from an enemy is
milchemes mitzvah.


> In David haMelekh's case, they weren't just stealing the straw,
> they were thereby threatening the rule of law in a boarder city and
> thus nibbling at the edges of his sovereignty.

What straw are you talking about?  "Lechu pishtu yedchem bigdud"; it's
*we* who want to steal *their* "straw", not the other way around!  And
we have the right to do so, even though soldiers will inevitably be
lost.


> The other example we have from David haMelekh is his conquering Suria.
>In neither case was it simply about money.

Then what was it about?


> There is a machloqes tannaim as to whether a preemptive war is a
> milkhemes mitzvah, or a milkhemes reshus that happens to be compelling
> for other reasons. Difference only being whether a chasan and kallah
>  are drafted.

Where is this machlokes?  In any event the halacha is paskened, and
milchemes reshus has nothing to do with preempting an enemy attack.


-- 
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

                    
                


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 227
***************************************

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..."