Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 63

Fri, 15 Jun 2012

• 1. Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 2. Mourning for a parent (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Mourning for a parent (Simi Peters)
• 4. Re: Mourning for a parent (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Mourning for a parent (Simi Peters)
• 6. Re: Mourning for a parent (Ben Waxman)
• 7. winding on the hand (saul newman)
• 8. spouse vs parent (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Spouse vs. parent (Saul Mashbaum)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] Asifa - Lose Olam Haba (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Obliged to Help Family First (Micha Berger)
• 12. yehoshua bin nun (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: yehoshua bin nun (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: distilled fruit juice (David Riceman)
• 15. Rabbi: Organ donations OK without dead's consent (hankman)
• 16. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (hankman)

I received the following response from one of my colleagues with an extensive Yeshiva background and one who is quite erudite.

He wrote:

One might possibly call the case of the name Agur Bin-Yakeh (Prov. 30:1)
some kind of fluke or "error," but this can hardly be the case with
Bin-Nun, which occurs 29 times in Tanakh as such and never as 
Ben-Nun. The Rambam was on to something as far as the two words being read
as one, but like you say, his explanation is fanciful. We know that bein
(son) changes its vowel to ben- in the nismach form  
(son of), and indeed in all of these nismach cases one might say that "the
two words are being read as one." So the question is why a different vowel
change in the case of -Nun, and I think the answer is purely phonological.
For some reason speakers of Ancient Hebrew found it more comfortable to
pronounce Bin-Nun than Ben-Nun. You won't find in Tanakh any case of Ben
followed by the sound nu-  regardless of 
what letter comes after the nu-.   Furthermore, I was only able to find a
single instance of a word in which a Segol-Bet is followed by either a
Kubutz-Nun or Shuruk-Nun  -- the word  y'subennu in Jer. 52:21. 

If we explore this phenomenon further we see that the change from Ben-to
Bin- is not as unique as it it seems, since the very same thing happened to
the name Bin-yamin, which obviously derives from Ben-yamin. (cf. Gen 35:18
-- "she named him Ben-Oni; but his father called him Bin-Yamin"). Comparing
this case to Bin-Nun, we see that the the operative phonological factor
must be the nasal sound "m" 
and/or "n". And similar to the rarity of the sound combination "bennu," I
could only find 6 names in Tanakh in the form Ben-Ya... (whether spelled
with a Kamatz or Patach), and none of these has a Mem 
or a Nun following the Ben-. (A 7th case might be the famous "Mordechai
Ben-Yair," but the Megillah spells it without a Makaf, so it is actually
"the son of Yair" rather than "Ben-Yair.")

We similarly find the word ben- changing bin- in the case of a
"reverse-nismach" to the nasal word "im" in Deut. 25:2 -- vehaya im-bin
hakot harasha.	In this case, if the Makaf had (more logically,
semantically speaking) been attached to the word hakot, it would have been 
vehaya im ben-hakot harasha instead of bin hakot.  

Finally, there is Jonah 4:10, "You cared about the kikayon plant, ...which
appeared overnight and perished overnight."  The very beautiful Hebrew is
...she-bin-laylah hayah u-vin-laylah avad. What we have 
here is a poetic vowel change that can appreciated two ways. It broadens
"in the night" (ba-laylah) into "born in the night" (ben-laylah) while it
simultaneously turns "son of the night"  (ben-laylah) into the 
more metaphorical  "of the night"  (bin-laylah). 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120614/1e901088/attachment-0001.htm>

At 02:30 PM 6/14/2012, Simi Peters wrote:
>If my theory is correct, the year-long mourning for a parent is 
>meant to over-ride or compensate for situations where the child 
>might not grieve sufficiently.

I once heard the following proposed for why the mourning period for a 
parent is a year and for a child it is only for 30 days.  IIRC it was 
Rav P. M. Teitz who said this, but I am not 100% sure.

Everyone expects his parents to die if "things go normally".  This is 
the way of the world. Children outlive parents in most 
cases.  Therefore,  there is a tendency to "forget" about the passing 
of a parent, and a year of mourning is designed to prevent this.

However, no one expects  a child to die.  It is a tremendous shock 
for parents and is never forgotten.  Thus 30 days is enough, because 
the passing of a child is never forgotten.

How this fits with only 30 days for a spouse or a sibling I do not know.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120614/1ad5ac39/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Prof. Levine 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:56 PM
> ... IIRC it was Rav P. M. Teitz who said this, but I am not 100% sure.

> Everyone expects his parents to die if "things go normally"....

> However, no one expects a child to die. It is a tremendous shock
> for parents and is never forgotten. Thus 30 days is enough, because
> the passing of a child is never forgotten.

>  How this fits with only 30 days for a spouse or a sibling I do not know. 

One does not have the same halakhic obligations to a spouse or sibling.
A relationship with a spouse can be severed by death or divorce, so
one's obligations only obtain within an existing relationship. And one
is not commanded to honor or fear a sibling.

Simi

At 05:23 PM 6/14/2012, Simi Peters wrote:
>One does not have the same halakhic obligations to a spouse or 
>sibling.  A relationship with a spouse can be severed by death or 
>divorce, so one's obligations only obtain within an existing 
>relationship.  And one is not commanded to honor or fear a sibling.

I do believe that one is required to give some honor to an older sibling.

From: Prof. Levine 
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 1:04 AM
> I do believe that one is required to give some honor to an older sibling. 

Yes, but the mourning period for *all* siblings is the same.

Simi Peters

That is too much of applying modern day circumstances backwards. Keep in 
mind that pre-vaccinations, pre-clean water, pre-antibiotics, yes you 
expected a child to die and it was quite the norm. I lived in Niger for 
a while; there was an extremely high death rate of children before age 5 
from all sorts of diseases.  In the Middle Ages parents often would give 
two children the same name because they were fully confident that one 
would die.

Ben

On 6/14/2012 11:56 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
>
> Everyone expects his parents to die if "things go normally".  This is 
> the way of the world. Children outlive parents in most cases.  
> Therefore,  there is a tendency to "forget" about the passing of a 
> parent, and a year of mourning is designed to prevent this.
>
> However, no one expects  a child to die.  It is a tremendous shock for 
> parents and is never forgotten.  Thus 30 days is enough, because the 
> passing of a child is never forgotten.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120615/f830e78d/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khlf8qRSjc4  different  customs  of  retzuos
on hand...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120614/77fbcf64/attachment-0001.htm>

<< These answers all were given at a nichum aveilim visit to RYBS, in the
year when he had three losses -- mother, brother and wife -- in six
months. The question came up while my father and Rav Hutner were there.
Rav Hutner gave the mesora-chain answer. (His wording was that when
a father passes away, the son is one generation farther from Sinai.)
My father's answer was that parents can have more than one child, while
a child has only one of each parent. RYBS gave the answer of the extra
months being for kibbud av va'eim. >>

nice story.
I believe that RMF also held that the 12 months is from kibud av va-em.
From memory, the question was about a woman who's parent had passed away
and during the year her husband was being honored at a fancy dinner and the
question was whether she could attend. RMF answered that a wife's
obligations to her husband overrides kibud av va-em. Since, aveilut of the
12 months was an instance of kibud av ve-am therefore, honoring her husband
overcomes the aveilut.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120615/93a0760d/attachment-0001.htm>

RMF writes in IM  that, since the laws of inheritance are based on the
principle "hakarov, karov kodem",
the fact that one's children inherit him even if his parents are alive,
shows that one's closest
relatives are his children, not his parents. Thus aveilut yud bet chodesh
is not based on the degree of closeness of the deceased to the mourner.
Rather, R. Moshe writes,  aveilut yud bet chodesh is a din in kibbud av
v'am.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120615/695296bc/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:38:50AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RZS writes:
: > >AFAIK that's not correct.  The rav must not merely determine that the
: > >proposed takanah is not against halacha; his consent is necessary for
: > >it to be valid.  If he sees no halachic objection but thinks it bad
: > >policy, he can still veto it.

: Just to add to what RZS says, the case upon which the idea that one needs
: the approval of an "adam chashuv" namely the Rav of the town, is based on
: Baba Basra 9a.  There Rava refused to enforce an agreement between two
: (presumably communal) butchers that if either one slaughtered on the other
: one's "day", the one whose day it was got the hide.  This is clearly an
: agreement that has nothing to do with halacha, but it was struck down
: because Rava was in the city, and was an adam chashuv, and he didn't agree
: to the deal.

Getting the thread back to where we were... Still, it's someone whose
authority was accepted, pasqening that what a representative sample of
the town agreed to is good town policy.

It's not someone who you didn't know would call in and never accepted
as /your/ authority pasqening something that doesn't need to be a
community-wide policy.

In the case of taxation or spending communal funds, then you need a
process to get a single answer, and it's inevitable that someone will
not get there way. Similarly that not everyone will be able to consult
their own rav.

And just like that town, the Agudah needs a Moetzes for the organization's
own guidance and direction. It's an organization, it needs to pick
a rav (or if you like the idea, pace R' Chaim Briker, of a panel of
rabbanim) to give a single answer for them to follow. The RCA has its
rav as well. That's different than accepting the authority of random
members of the Moetzes -- or in this case, a different organization's
mo'etzes -- to pasqen or provide lifnim mishuras hadin guidance for
*members* (formal or informal) of the Agudah.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:46:45PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Do More? That is not the plain meaning of HaKaRov KaRov KoDem. FIRST means
: BEFORE. Does it also mean MORE THAN?

I think it implies it. I do not think you're supposed to so strictly
ration to the point that the sick person before you gets no more than
what you expect to need for everyone else.

Therefore, whomever comes first will also get more.

Also, haste is itself a "resource". You would need to explain why the
qarov gets first attention, but that same priority doen't translate into
other resources. I would think the default assumption is that priority
is across the board, not that it applies to the explicitly named case of
who comes first alone.

Wht would you do with "chayei ha'ir hazos qodmin" or "aniyei irekha
qodmin"? Also say it's about time to the exclusion of allocation?


Of course, this has to be mixed in with all the other rules of triage.
A qarov vs a kohein or TC, etc... (Not to mention an easy case like
yenem's CPR before your son's bandaid.) It's not always going to apply.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

<< It would be the same as someone whose name was Bentziyon. He would still
be Bentziyon ben Avrohom. >>

reminds of the discussion of the meaning of the name of the amora Rabbah
bar bar Hana

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120615/2eb8e55c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:55:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: reminds of the discussion of the meaning of the name of the amora Rabbah
: bar bar Hana

On the top of Gittin 17a, RbbC hosts Rebbe and Rabbah [bar Nachmeini]
and a pair of "Chaveirim" their lamp. RbbC davened that if we couldn't
be under His direct protection, at least that of Edom! The gemara asks:
But didn't R' Chiya (who makes aliyah from Bavel) say that HQBH exiled us
to Bavel because He knew we chouldn't handle Edom? So which was worse? The
gemara answers that Bavel was only better until the Chaveirim came.

The Chaveirim were probably the Sassanids, who took over Persia in 205,
the early amoraic period. (Rebbe was niftar in 188 or 219 ce.)

The discussion was probably on the Persian holiday of Ormuzd (so theorizes
Graetz) as they celebrate the demiurge who allegedly greated good and
light, and thus only Zoroastians were allowed to have lamps.

Anyway.... back to the point.

RbbC complains about the locals in this story. He moved to EY, where
he learned under R' Yochanan, and eventually returns. In Pesachim 51a,
he has enough of Bavel, again.

I therefore think there is value to the theory that parts of his name
were lost or buried during attempts to hide out from the authorities.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

Me:

<<if you produce water by distilling fruit juice, which does not 
machshir zeraim, does the water thus obtained machshir zeraim?>>

RDB:

<<The Sugya is Mei Chalav Kechalav (Machshirin 6:5). See also Chullin 
114 and Aruch Hashulchan OC 168:27 and YD 81:16.>>

You haven't exactly spelled out what you have in mind.  My first 
impression is that you think that if a liquid is derived from a mashkeh 
then it is itself a mashkeh.

But that can't be true.  See H. Tumas Ochlin 10:13-14, "hayayin 
sheb'soch hakaf eino mashkeh ad shey'areh oso l'soch hakli", and an 
analogous din for mohel coming from olives.  Furthermore see AhSH He 
Asid Tohoros 175:9-13, who distinguishes three types of mohel from 
olives, and concludes that their status depends on their composition, 
which doesn't fit your model.

Of course you were so terse that you may have meant something else 
entirely...

Incidentally I really don't understand the Rambam I just cited. There's 
a mahlokes (Rambam vs. Raavad) at the beginning of H. Tumas Ochlin about 
whether the mishna you cite is about hechsher for tumah or about 
hibbur.  Naively the Rambam here seems to fit better with the Raavad 
there.  There's a long Hazon Ish about it that I hope to look through on 
Shabbos.

RMB:

<<I think it's of the same worldview as that which lists mayim and tal 
as different liquids. We care about where water comes from.>>

I don't think that's right.  The issue is the name.  See the Sifra on 
"v'chol mashkeh asher yishaseh ..." cited by the AhSHhA Tohoros 158:4.

David Riceman

Rabbi: Organ donations OK without dead's consent
By JEREMY SHARON
06/14/2012 18:50

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=273895

In part the article reads:
?The assumption that a man is master of his own life is problematic,
because in fact it is a gift from the creator and he is the one who decides
how and when life ends.?

Robby Berman, founder and director of the Halachic Organ Donor Society,
said that despite the positive intentions of Arusi to deal with the low
number of organ donations in Israel, he would not encourage a rabbinical
court to overrule a family?s wishes for dealing with a loved one.

He added that an opt-out system, whereby a presumption is made that someone
is an organ donor unless they specifically state they do not want to do so,
has similar problems to those of Arusi?s proposal.


CM comments:
The article mentions that the common assumption that you are the master of
your life (read owner of your body) deals with this issue while you are
alive. But it occurred to me as I read the article, the more relevant but
not discussed issue is control of the body after death. (without getting
into the issue of when and on what basis one declares death, I think it is
clear to all deleka man depalig, there is no ownership (control) after
death (nor ownership of your body according to the Rabbi in this article
even during life). Thus you have the perfect basis in halacha (at least
from the  Choshen Mishpot perspective) for an opt out system. Ie, as the
dead body is ownerless, there is no reason why it should not be used to
save lives where the only objection might be the unknown wishes of the
person who died ? IOW the lack of an opt in). But where the family or the
deceased is known to object we may defer to them for various other
non-Choshen Mishpot reason even though they may 
 not actually ?own? or control the body of the deceased.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120615/c3e710d8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/06/2012 12:55 PM, hankman wrote:
> I am not much of a mequbal so it is safe to say I have never heard of
> this idea of ?progressive revelation.? If I intuit the meaning
> correctly then I have a major problem with this concept. Based on the
> hashkafot I was taught, this idea would be heretical grade A. Torah
> was revealed to man but once at Sinai. At any later time any claim for
> a new or additional revelation is false and any person making such a
> claim is per force, even if he is a known navi, a navi sheker and to
> be punished as such. This seems to me to be squarely at odds with the
> idea of progressive revelation. Whereas ?Torah lo bashomayim hi? fits
> neatly with the hashkofot as I was taught, progressive revelation does
> not. What am I missing here?

RZS responded:
Then what is nevuah? "Vezot Hatorah" means no new *halachot* can
be given. But secrets of Torah can be revealed. After all, "Torah
chadasha me'iti tetzei".

CM responds:
First in case there are any with the misconception that there is a pasuk in
Yesheiahu (51:4) that reads "Torah chadasha me'iti tetzei" they should know
that no such pasuk exists. (I know, RZS never said it was a pasuk). The
pasuk actually reads: "Torah me'iti tetzei." The word ?chadasha? is an
interpolation of the medrash. 

I did a couple of searches on this phrase and it turns out that for the
most part so far as I can tell this question has been repeatedly asked wrt
this concept of ?Torah chadasha? as well. (This phrase appears most often
in the writings [based solely on my several computer searches] of
Lubavitchers). But the reference time frame is almost always ?l?osid lavo?
or ?yemos hamoshiach? etc. but not bezmaneinu. Our discussion was the
nekudos as we know them today. Also we could call that the hilchos
pronounciation for our time, so this IS ?halachot.? As far as ?secrets? of
Torah being revealed, they generally assume this refers to a more in depth
understanding of ta?amei hamitzvot. Some also use this concept to explain
the change  in ruling like Beis Shammai l?osid lavo, as he was more in tune
with the higher meaning of the mitzvot while Beis Hillel was more firmly
planted on terra firma.

I also googled ?progressive revelation? and the large majority of the hits were either Christian or Bahai web sites.

Finally, ?nevuah? is firmly rooted in commands of the Torah, and is not to
be seen as an attempt to add HV?S to the Torah. It is a command to believe
and obey the commands of a navi ? not to create a Torah chadasha. They can
only be of a temporary nature and not a new mitzvo ledoros (unless of
course it is as takonos) and valid even if they temporarily countermand an
express command of the Torah ? but clearly based on the Torah as given
miSinai.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120615/fe987da0/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 63
**************************************

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..."