Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 66

Tue, 19 Jun 2012

• 1. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (hankman)
• 2. halachic infertility (Yosef Skolnick)
• 3. Kivrey Avos (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 4. Re: halachic infertility (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: halachic infertility (Daniel M. Israel)
• 6. Re: halachic infertility (Ilana Elzufon)
• 7. Re: loss of infants (Daniel M. Israel)
• 8. Re: aveilus (Daniel M. Israel)
• 9. Re: aveilus (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: halachic infertility (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: yaarog v' al.....how many? and why? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Seeking a facility for drug addiction problems (hankman)
• 14. Re: yaarog v' al.....how many? and why? (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: yaarog v' al.....how many? and why? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Seeking a facility for drug addiction problems (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Kivrey Avos (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: Kivrey Avos (Rich, Joel)
• 19. Re: Seeking a facility for drug addiction problems (Zev Sero)

RMB wrote:
> Nakh's halachic status reflects its being
> relayed in a manner less precise than nevu'as Moshe.

Yes, but there is more. There was the promise that there would not be
a future revelation that would add or change that given at Sinai. Of
course the difference between the quality of MR's nevuah and of the
other nevi'im may be (is) the reason for this promise.

RZS wrote:
> I see no reason to believe that MR knew anything
> you will read there. Of course it's *possible*, anything is possible,
> but I don't see any reason why it would be so. MR was taught many Torah
> secrets, but not necessarily everything. 

All I see is your ASSUMPTIONS but no supporting source or authority for
your view.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:19 PM, <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote [to Areivim]:
> http://forward.com/articles/157819/for-some-halacha-makes
> -conceiving-tough/

Just to clarify, in these cases there is room to move, a bit, for an
experienced posek... 12 is the absolute requirement for most people,
but it can be reduced, a bit, in certain cases, such as these, See as an
example the treatment given in Halachos of Niddah by Rabbi Binyomin Forst
(need to find the chapter again).

Yosef Skolnick

Is it not contrary to our beliefs to propose that anyone is beyond
salvation?
But my query was not about the spies seeking salvation through prayer but
about them WANTING to visit Kivrey Avos. These days it would be unthinkable
that any ehrlicher Yid, other than those who as a matter of principle,
would visit EY and not visit Mekomos HaKedoshim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120619/2b76c82f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:17:55PM -0400, Yosef Skolnick wrote:
: Just to clarify, in these cases there is room to move, a bit, for an
: experienced posek... 12 is the absolute requirement for most people,
: but it can be reduced, a bit, in certain cases, such as these, See as an
: example the treatment given in Halachos of Niddah by Rabbi Binyomin Forst
: (need to find the chapter again).

The impression I got from RARakeffetR was that now that the option exists,
some poesaqim prefer IVH (in vitro fertilization with the husband's sperm)
to being meiqil. (For anyone. Doubly so if rumor of this heter might
relay the message that 7 neqi'im isn't "real".) If that's the route
they take, it's likely the poseiq would advise two tevilos:
Once, after niddah deOraisa, so that any consequent velad would definitely
not have the pegam of being a ben niddah; and
A 2nd time as per most couples, to fulfil the minhag Yisrael of 5 +
7 neqi'im.

Tir'u baTov!
-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

On Jun 18, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:17:55PM -0400, Yosef Skolnick wrote:
> : Just to clarify, in these cases there is room to move, a bit, for an
> : experienced posek... 12 is the absolute requirement for most people,
> : but it can be reduced, a bit, in certain cases, such as these, See as an
> : example the treatment given in Halachos of Niddah by Rabbi Binyomin Forst
> : (need to find the chapter again).
> 
> The impression I got from RARakeffetR was that now that the option exists,
> some poesaqim prefer IVH (in vitro fertilization with the husband's sperm)
> to being meiqil.

R' Forst indicates that hormonal treatment to delay ovulation is preferable
to early tevilah.  I find both of these positions anti-intuitive for two
reasons.  First, why would we prefer an eitzah that clearly was not
possible for most of history?  Second, although neither of these are
terribly risky procedures, no medical procedure is completely without
dangers, so why don't we give any weight avoiding unnecessary medical
intervention?

> (For anyone. Doubly so if rumor of this heter might
> relay the message that 7 neqi'im isn't "real".)

AIUI, there is no shortening of the 7, it is the 5 that can be shortened.

> If that's the route
> they take, it's likely the poseiq would advise two tevilos:
> Once, after niddah deOraisa, so that any consequent velad would definitely
> not have the pegam of being a ben niddah; and
> A 2nd time as per most couples, to fulfil the minhag Yisrael of 5 +
> 7 neqi'im.


Are you speculating?  Because I would think that such an approach would
seem to cast doubt on the first tevilah, and therefore raise at least as
many problems as it would solve.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

RYS:12 is the absolute requirement for most people,

> : but it can be reduced, a bit, in certain cases, such as these, See as an
> : example the treatment given in Halachos of Niddah by Rabbi Binyomin Forst
> : (need to find the chapter again).
>

Rav Forst, vol 2 (green version, not ladies' version), page 148, mainly in
footnote. In some Sephardi communities, all women only count a 4-day
minimum, and sometimes from the previous biah rather than onset of niddah.
There are poskim who will allow some/all of this for all women in
extenuating circumstances, even if they normally wait 5 days from the onset
of niddah for a hefsek.

Another important, but sometimes overlooked, solution is to remind women to
ask a she'elah on a hefsek attempt from day 5 even if it is stained,
explaining to the rav the halachic infertility situation. This is the
solution of FIRST RESORT. There are women who are convinced they have
halachic infertility, who could go to the mikvah a day or two earlier
simply by asking she'elot.

By the way, ovulation testing kits are now readily available over the
counter or by ordering online, and are not expensive, so a woman can verify
fairly easily whether she is indeed ovulating before mikvah. This should be
done over several months, as most women do not have completely regular
cycles and may ovulate before mikvah some months but not others.

>
> RMB: The impression I got from RARakeffetR was that now that the option
> exists,
> some poesaqim prefer IVH (in vitro fertilization with the husband's sperm)
> to being meiqil. (For anyone. Doubly so if rumor of this heter might
> relay the message that 7 neqi'im isn't "real".) If that's the route
> they take, it's likely the poseiq would advise two tevilos:
> Once, after niddah deOraisa, so that any consequent velad would definitely
> not have the pegam of being a ben niddah; and
> A 2nd time as per most couples, to fulfil the minhag Yisrael of 5 +
> 7 neqi'im.
>

AIH, not IVH. Just artificial insemination, infinitely cheaper and less
complicated than IVF. Medically, it's basically the same procedure used
(l'havdil) by women who do not have husbands but wish to have babies.
However, it comes with its own set of significant halachic problems related
to the method of obtaining the zera.

The heter you are referring to - tevilah during shivah neki'im, i.e.,
tevilah after niddah d'Oraita - is indeed a much, much more significant
kula than that mentioned above in the name of Rav Forst, where the
compromise is only the minimum days before the start of shivah neki'im.
Such a heter, if issued, would be based on the judgment of the individual
posek, taking into account all aspects of the couple's particular situation.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120619/840dcae2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Jun 17, 2012, at 11:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I just saw a halachic discussion of this on a recent daf yomi (Nidah
> 23) from Rav Stav of Har Etzion. He brings a contradiction between two
> gemarot about whether parents have pain (tzaar) on the death of a
> "nefel" (under 30 days). He gives two answers which might be relevant
> to the discussion
> 1) there is pain at the time of burial but it subsides over time in contrast to the loss of an older son/daughter whose pain never diminishes.
> 
> 2) there is a difference between a father who is pained less by the loss of a "nefel" and the pain of the mother who is more effected

I can attest to both of these.	When we lost our second daughter after
three days two years ago, a number of list chaveirim e-mailed condolences
including statements to the effect, "I know what you are going through, I
lost a child at such-and-such an age."	I absolutely appreciated the
sentiment, but in each case I did have an immediate response of, "actually
it is I who can't imagine what you went through."  As terrible as it was, I
can't imagine how much harder it would have been with a child who had grown
to the point that I had a real relationship with her.  Also, I definitely
saw that it was much harder on my wife then on me, even though I probably
spent more time with our daughter, since my wife was recovering from an
emergency C-section.  I think the experience of feeling the child develop
inside for all those months creates a bond even before the child is born
that a father can't really appreciate.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Jun 12, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Why are people in these cases -- lo aleinu -- told not to sit, rather
> than being told they aren't mechuyavim to sit?


Are there no issurim involved in sitting when you aren't mechuyav?

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:53:48PM -0600, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
: > Why are people in these cases -- lo aleinu -- told not to sit, rather
: > than being told they aren't mechuyavim to sit?

: Are there no issurim involved in sitting when you aren't mechuyav?

That is the core of my question. I know that geirim are permitted to
practice aveilus for their horim nachriim. So I figured that in general,
aveilus is permissable.

Assuming the "aveil" learns as much time, if not the same material,
so there is no bitul Torah issue, I can't imagine an issur involved.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:29:09PM -0600, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
:> The impression I got from RARakeffetR was that now that the option exists,
:> some poesaqim prefer IVH (in vitro fertilization with the husband's sperm)
:> to being meiqil.

: R' Forst indicates that hormonal treatment to delay ovulation
: is preferable to early tevilah. I find both of these positions
: anti-intuitive for two reasons. First, why would we prefer an eitzah
: that clearly was not possible for most of history? Second, although
: neither of these are terribly risky procedures, no medical procedure
: is completely without dangers, so why don't we give any weight avoiding
: unnecessary medical intervention?

1- Why should we limit ourselves just because our ancestors didn't have
options? Do you use printed sefarim? Why is this different?

2- There is no measurable risk at all to AIH.

:> (For anyone. Doubly so if rumor of this heter might
:> relay the message that 7 neqi'im isn't "real".)

: AIUI, there is no shortening of the 7, it is the 5 that can be shortened.

I would have said: the requirement that the shiv'ah be neqi'im is the
minhag. The waiting of a minimum of 5 days is to insure that all 7 days
are neqi'im.


:> If that's the route
:> they take, it's likely the poseiq would advise two tevilos:
:> Once, after niddah deOraisa, so that any consequent velad would definitely
:> not have the pegam of being a ben niddah; and
:> A 2nd time as per most couples, to fulfil the minhag Yisrael of 5 +
:> 7 neqi'im.

: Are you speculating? Because I would think that such an approach
: would seem to cast doubt on the first tevilah, and therefore raise at
: least as many problems as it would solve.

The idea is part of what I was repeating besheim RARR.

I don't think it does cast doubt, though. The first tevilah isn't even
to acheive a halachic outcome -- there is no issur to producing or
even marrying a ben niddah. It's not even clear the child would be a
"ben niddah", since issur niddah wasn't violated. It's just to tie up
qabbalistic interpretations of the idea, that might suggest a pegam.


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:33:32AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote:
: RMB:
:> The impression I got from RARakeffetR was that now that the option exists,
:> some poesaqim prefer [AIH]
:> to being meiqil. (For anyone. Doubly so if rumor of this heter might
:> relay the message that 7 neqi'im isn't "real".)...

: The heter you are referring to - tevilah during shivah neki'im, i.e.,
: tevilah after niddah d'Oraita - is indeed a much, much more significant
: kula than that mentioned above in the name of Rav Forst, where the
: compromise is only the minimum days before the start of shivah neki'im.
: Such a heter, if issued, would be based on the judgment of the individual
: posek, taking into account all aspects of the couple's particular situation.

I'm not sure why, since there are no relations until after tevilah at
the normal time. The early tevilah is to get rid of tum'ah deOraisa
(unless this was one of the small minority of cases where it really is
zavah gedolah, for the sake of eliminating any change of pegam. As I
wrote above, the tevilah it not being relied upon for anything halachic.

OTOH, if we actually pasqen lemaaseh based on the "unreality" of the
minhag of 7 neqi'im, we are weakening the walls of observance WRT normal
couples as well. Such a pesaq is dangerous policy.

: - Ilana

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

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:46:34AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 6/15/2012 11:39 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 02:48:31PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> ...
>> : shita, and why? since it is not one  of the 3 yaareg v' al yaavors.....
> ...
>> CH might be subsumed under AZ, though.

> Pardon? Why on earth would chillul Hashem be a toladah of avodah zarah?

Let's go back a step, since I missed something...

The concept of yeihareig ve'al yaavor is itself part of the mitzvah of
qiddush hasheim. So, it would seem that defining chillul hasheim within
asking about how one violates qiddush hasheim is begging for circular
reasoning anyway.

This also *may* answer the OP. aside from his conflating yeihareig ve'al
ya'avor with the punishment of misah. Milchamah will require people
losing their lives in order to fulfil the mitzvah, but it's not for the
sake of the specific mitzvah of qiddush hasheim. The "big three" are.

But here was my reasoning:

Following Encyc Talmudit (thanks Bar Ilan web site!) there are the three
types of chillul hasheim:
1- Doing an aveirah be'oneis when it's yeihareig ve'al ya'avor

2- doing one of a list of specific aveiros, but doing it lehach'is or
betei'avon but beharhesia.

3- Someone who represents Judaism in the eyes of others doing something
that reflects badly on that which he represents.

I was thinking of #3 in particular, since we were just discussing the
linkage between presenting poorly to nachriim and non-shomerei mitzvos
and chillul hasheim.

Now I can get to the actual connection: I could see calling an issur
against doing that which dissuades others from following the G-d of the
Jews a toladah of the issur against worshipping another god (or the real
G-d but not as the Torah says).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:39:10AM -0400, hankman wrote:
: RMB wrote:
:> Nakh's halachic status reflects its being
:> relayed in a manner less precise than nevu'as Moshe.

: Yes, but there is more. There was the promise that there would not be
: a future revelation that would add or change that given at Sinai. Of
: course the difference between the quality of MR's nevuah and of the
: other nevi'im may be (is) the reason for this promise.

Or perhaps the reverse... it's the immutability of the Torah which
motivates HQBH not relating to anyone else in the way He communicated
to Moshe.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

A well known blogger mentions in a recent blog that some Rabbanim have
opined that in seeking a facility for drug addiction problems, get the best
therapeutic facility available even if it means a non kosher or non shomer
Shabbos facility. I am curious as to the basis for this psak. Is it in some
sense a case of pikuach nefesh, so get the best possible treatment even at
the cost of kashrus or chilul Shabbos, or is some other logic at play here?

He wrote:
It is interesting to note that when the father consulted Rabbanim as to
what kind of facility his son should go to for addiction problems, they
said it was not essential to find a Shomer Shabbos or Kosher facility. The
most important thing was to find the facility that was right
therapeutically. 
Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120619/f9e29771/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/19/2012 9:52 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:46:34AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> On 6/15/2012 11:39 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>      
>>> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 02:48:31PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
>>> ...
>>> : shita, and why? since it is not one  of the 3 yaareg v' al yaavors.....
>>>        
>> ...
>>      
>>> CH might be subsumed under AZ, though.
>>>        
>    
>> Pardon? Why on earth would chillul Hashem be a toladah of avodah zarah?
>>      
>
>    
...

> Now I can get to the actual connection: I could see calling an issur
> against doing that which dissuades others from following the G-d of the
> Jews a toladah of the issur against worshipping another god (or the real
> G-d but not as the Torah says).
>    
Okay, I see your argument, but I disagree.  The opposite of following 
God is not avodah zarah.

Lisa

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 09:56:17AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Now I can get to the actual connection: I could see calling an issur
>> against doing that which dissuades others from following the G-d of the
>> Jews a toladah of the issur against worshipping another god (or the real
>> G-d but not as the Torah says).

> Okay, I see your argument, but I disagree.  The opposite of following  
> God is not avodah zarah.

I didn't say they were identical. I called one a toladah of the other.
I wasn't planning on bothering to clarify on list, but this tangent
hit me...

Is it worse to be a polytheist than an atheist? A polytheist is oveid
AZ, an atheist does not, even though he is still an apiqoreis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:20:44AM -0400, hankman wrote:
: I am curious as to the basis for this psak. Is it in some sense a case
: of pikuach nefesh, so get the best possible treatment even at the cost
: of kashrus or chilul Shabbos, or is some other logic at play here?

I know of the Novominsker advising similarly in the case of someone
needing psychiatric care. His reasoning was parallel to piquach nefesh,
but I do not think he actually called it piquach nefesh. We are mechallel
Shabbos for PN because "chalal alav Shabbos achas kedei sheyishameir
Shabbasos harbei", which should be true for someone incapable of keeping
Shabbos in their current condition for other reasons. Especially when
no one else is being called upon to violate Shabbos on their behalf.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 07:37:16AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! wrote:
: Is it not contrary to our beliefs to propose that anyone is beyond
: salvation?

Doesn't that depend on how one explains the bas qol Acheir heard that
said he couldn't do teshuvah?

Second, one cheit does not qualify as "beyond salvation". Perhaps this
one sin was beyond their nequdas habechirah whether or not they went to
qivrei avos. But given enough time, they could improve themselves.

Especially since redemption is on a meta level -- not where one is, but
which direction one is heading in. So they don't even have to be beyond
some point to be redeeming, they need to "only" be reaching for that
level.

As R' Ezra Bick put it: The most transcendent thing about man is his
very ability to transcend.


: But my query was not about the spies seeking salvation through prayer but
: about them WANTING to visit Kivrey Avos. These days it would be unthinkable
: that any ehrlicher Yid, other than those who as a matter of principle,
: would visit EY and not visit Mekomos HaKedoshim.

Maybe: ha'oseiq bemitzvah patur min hamitzvah. Unless the visit would
help the mission HQBH told Moshe to send them on, maybe it would have
been wrong to interrupt it for the visit.

Or maybe that was part of the blunder.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

: But my query was not about the spies seeking salvation through prayer but
: about them WANTING to visit Kivrey Avos. These days it would be unthinkable
: that any ehrlicher Yid, other than those who as a matter of principle,
: would visit EY and not visit Mekomos HaKedoshim.

Maybe: ha'oseiq bemitzvah patur min hamitzvah. Unless the visit would
help the mission HQBH told Moshe to send them on, maybe it would have
been wrong to interrupt it for the visit.

Or maybe that was part of the blunder.

-------------------------------------------
Or maybe the assumption "These days it would be unthinkable
: that any ehrlicher Yid, other than those who as a matter of principle,
: would visit EY and not visit Mekomos HaKedoshim."  Is based on more recent trends in practice

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 19/06/2012 11:04 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I know of the Novominsker advising similarly in the case of someone
> needing psychiatric care. His reasoning was parallel to piquach nefesh,
> but I do not think he actually called it piquach nefesh. We are mechallel
> Shabbos for PN because "chalal alav Shabbos achas kedei sheyishameir
> Shabbasos harbei", which should be true for someone incapable of keeping
> Shabbos in their current condition for other reasons. Especially when
> no one else is being called upon to violate Shabbos on their behalf.

The relevant precedent is probably the heter to break Shabbos in order
to save someone from shmad.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 66
**************************************

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..."