Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 122

Thu, 14 Aug 2014

• 1. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Zev Sero)
• 2. Fwd: Re: A Temple in Flames (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs Aliyyot for minors (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Fwd: Re: A Temple in Flames (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: A Temple in Flames (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: A Temple in Flames (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: The Chatam Sofer and the Admor of Munkatch Say Not to Pray for Peace! (elazar teitz)
• 9. Re: The Chatam Sofer and the Admor of Munkatch Say Not to Pray for Peace! (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: The Chatam Sofer and the Admor of Munkatch Say Not to Pray for Peace! (elazar teitz)
• 11. Re: The Chatam Sofer and the Admor of Munkatch Say Not to Dav en for Peace! (Kenneth Miller)
• 12. Re: Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs Aliyyot for minors (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs Aliyyot for minors (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: The Chatam Sofer and the Admor of Munkatch Say Not to Dav en for Peace! (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical Perspective (Joseph Kaplan)

On 13/08/2014 3:48 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:

>> I have raised this objection before, to the claim that smoking
>> can fall under "venishmartem". There is simply no source for including a
>> practise that has no probability of killing one. Nobody has ever smoked
>> a cigarette and dropped dead of it

> Would you say someone with emphysema would be forbidden to smoke as
> it could trigger a fatal attack?

Very likely.  Just as it's certainly forbidden to smoke at a gasoline station
or in a grain silo.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

> But either would require taking the story of Kimchis as ahistorical,
> since her reward was to see all 7 of her sons, including R' Yishmael,
> serve as kohein gadol. But if there was no Yishmael kohein gadol, even
> if YbEKG and Yishmael ben Kimchis were not supposed to be the same
> person, her story couldn't be historical.
>
I have  never understood  this story
Assuming it happened towards the end of basis send as Micha does then the
high priests were not tzaddikim and bought the position
Furthermore for 7 sons to be high priests either they all died young like
every year or else became take for you Kippur almost every year

In any case it doesn't  seem that Kimchis has much to be proud of
I have always assumed this is ahistorical
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140813/9c516b5b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Esther and Aryeh Frimer wrote:
: I apologize for not responding to previous comments on my post,
: However personal issues and Purim got in the way. Unfortunately, all
: the issues raised on Avodah are extensively discussed and documented
: in the full paper: "Women, Kri'at haTorah and Aliyyot" Aryeh A. Frimer
: and Dov I. Frimer, Tradition, 46:4 (Winter, 2013), 67-238, available at
: http://www.rcarabbis.org/pdf/frimer_article.pdf. Please read it before
: you criticize our conclusions...

I was listening to R Mordechai Torczyner's shiurim on the subject.
<http://www.yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81072&;category=0,234818&series=4155>

The topic of Kevod haTzibbur dominates parts 6 through 10, and is also
in much of part 11 (out of 11). RMT does mention the discussion here,
BTW, but I am suscribed to his podcast in general. (Love his series on
Medrash!) Anyway...

RMT pointed out that the Rs A&D Frimer define kevod hatzibbur as a
collection of kevod ha'adam, and use kevod ha'adam sources to define some
of its parameters. Which had me thinking more about this point. They have
reasons for connecting the two, but their conclusion is that therefore the
kevod hatzibbur is going to outweigh that of the yachid. When comparing
two like concepts, it's a straight quantitative comparison.

But thinking about it, two questions hit me:

1- The smaller problem is what this would say about a congregation of 10
men and 11 women who are feminists who would feel slighted if none of them
got an aliyah. More people would feel belittled by *not* calling her up.

(The questions of whether not doing something is a kevod haadam issue,
or whether someone who takes offense for cultural or personal reasons
is having their kavod violated, etc... are all discussed.)

2- The bigger problem I had is that a person owns their own kavod. So,
if we define kevod hatzibbur in terms of the minyan as a quantum of Kelal
Yisrael, then the minyan doesn't own the kavod in question and can't be
mochel it. But if the men in the minyan believe there is no slight to
their kavod by her getting an aliyah, why can't each be mochel.

I therefore see this formulation as reason to be *more* meiqil, not
machmir!

Did I misunderstand?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 13/08/2014 3:59 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>> But either would require taking the story of Kimchis as ahistorical,


> I have  never understood  this story [...] Furthermore for 7 sons to be
> high priests either they all died young like every year or else became
> take for you Kippur almost every year

Not at all.  Why think they died young?  Maybe they died very old, each
succeeding his brother at an advanced age, and then dying in due course.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:16:52PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Not at all.  Why think they died young?  Maybe they died very old, each
: succeeding his brother at an advanced age, and then dying in due course.

Not all of them died. One became tamei on YK, and his bother had to take
over. (Two brothers served on the same YK, both alive on the 11th.)

But if any of them died.... A mother outliving her son is a very odd
berakhah. Even if she was 120, and he a mere 105.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I've spent much of today through the sources that I could find.


> Similarly, compare Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer vol. 1 (20,
>  Ch. 3; from 1945) to vol. 15 (39; from 1983) where he explicitly
>  prohibits smoking.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14514&;pgnum=110

What he says is that "yesh makom le'esor".  His major emphasis seems to be
on the Rambam's admonition in Hil' De'os that being healthy is one of the
ways of Hashem, and that one can't serve Hashem properly if one is sick.
But of course that's not an issur.  For an actual issur one must look to
"venishmartem", which he does, but he doesn't discuss it in any depth, and
certainly doesn't address the complete dissimilarity of smoking to any of
the examples of this issur.



> Regarding Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, compare Shu"t
>     Ohr L'Tzion (vol. 3, Ch. 20, footnote 2) to his later Ohr L'Tzion -
>     Chochma U'Mussar (pg. 221; as well as the editor's note to his previous
>     teshuva).

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19980&;pgnum=194
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19976&;pgnum=229

The teshuvah doesn't really deal with the issue at all, just alludes to it
derech agav (and from the editor's footnote seems to have been written at a
time when the author himself was a heavy smoker).

The piece in "Chochma Umussar" is not a teshuvah, it's just a short piece
that mentions derech agav that smoking is forbidden, but without any discussion,
so it can't form the basis for any sort of discussion of the issue.


>   Shu"t Minchas Shlomo (vol. 2, 58, 6);

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47989&;pgnum=235

He does address the cumulative nature of the damage smoking does, but he
assumes that there *is* definite damage, to which each cigarette contributes
a small amount.  He doesn't mention "venishmartem" but "chovel atzmo", which
assumes that there is an actual chabala, and also that there's no benefit at
all to smoking.  Neither of these assumptions seems to be correct.  There's
no direct causal relationship between the cigarettes a person smokes and the
cancer that he *may* eventually develop; also, since a one-cigarette-a-day
habit doesn't even raise his probability of developing cancer, no single
cigarette can be blamed even if he does develop it. (Even his entire history
of smoking can only be *probably* blamed, but any individual cigarette can't
even be blamed that much.)


> Shu"t Ba'er Moshe (vol. 6, 160, 9)

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14711&;pgnum=413

Assumes that smoking directly causes diseases, at least in lungs already
weakened by being constantly immersed in urban pollution.   (Interestingly,
the subject of the teshuvah is when we should or shouldn't give credence to
the discoveries of modern medicine.)


>Shu"t Shevet HaLevi (vol. 10, 295)

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1420&;pgnum=231

Very short, doesn't discuss the issues at all.  Forbids young people from
starting to smoke, but doesn't actually forbid smoking for those who are
already addicted, rather urges them to try to stop.   From his (very brief)
reference to "second-hand smoke" it's clear that his understanding of the
metzius is flawed, and he assumes the cigarettes literally cause damage.


>She'elas Rav (pg. 92), Shu"t Teshuvos V'Hanhagos (vol. 1, 159, and stronger in
> vol. 3, 354, and outright assur in vol. 4, 115);

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20025&;pgnum=121
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49820&;pgnum=407
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20027&;pgnum=112

In the first teshuvah he explains his understanding of the metzius, that
doctors whom we trust to permit someone to eat on Yom Kippur are surely
trustworthy when they say they know what causes cancer.  IOW he thinks
they're saying that the cigarette is a direct cause, and the only possible
heter is "shomer pesayim Hashem", which is dubious.

The second teshuvah is more explicit, and dismisses various alternative
explanations for the medical evidence.   I find it interesting, though,
that despite his conviction that it's dangerous, and lich'orah assur, he
writes that the rabbanim should not issue a public issur, because it won't
be accepted.  Now if he held smoking was already "asurah vekayma", then
why would this be a consideration?  If he held as a matter of halacha that
a certain fish was treif, but he knew that nobody would listen to him,
would he let that prevent him from making his psak din known?!  Evidently,
despite his words, he doesn't really think smoking is actually included in
an already-existing issur, but rather he thinks it *ought* to be forbidden
as a gezeira, except that one doesn't make a gezeira that will not be obeyed.


>Shu"t Rivevos Efraim (vol. 3, 487, and stronger in vol. 8, 586)
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1085&;pgnum=319
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1082&;pgnum=476

The first teshuvah isn't relevant at all; the second doesn't discuss anything,
just says it's assur, and dismisses "shomer pesayim", but takes it for granted
that there's nothing else to discuss.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

On 13/08/2014 6:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But if any of them died.... A mother outliving her son is a very odd
> berakhah. Even if she was 120, and he a mere 105.

Serach bas Asher tochiach.   Or Rav Preida.  Evidently arichus yamim is
a blessing even if it means outliving ones children and grandchildren.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:03:40PM +0300, REMT wrote:
>:      If they say so, who are we to argue?  All we can do is pray that Oseh
>: shalom bimromav Hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol Yisraeil.

> This could be lashon asid, rather than tzivui. No?

     How does the "amein" fit in with a non-t'filla statement?

EMT

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:35pm +0300, REMT wrote:
:> This could be lashon asid, rather than tzivui. No?

: How does the "amein" fit in with a non-t'filla statement?

I'm lost. Given the statement you're replying to, I first assumed you
mean non-baqasha statement. But "amein" is said to shevach and/or
hoda'ah more often than baqashos -- every time we answer someone
making a berakhah. (Meaning "barukh Atah H'...", rather than bestowing
a berakhah on others -- which /is/ baqashah.)

So, I don't get the meaning.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>: How does the "amein" fit in with a non-t'filla statement?

> I'm lost. Given the statement you're replying to, I first assumed you
> mean non-baqasha statement. But "amein" is said to shevach and/or
> hoda'ah more often than baqashos -- every time we answer someone
> making a berakhah. (Meaning "barukh Atah H'...", rather than bestowing
> a berakhah on others -- which /is/ baqashah.)

     I always understood that the instruction "v'imru amein" or "v'nomar
amein" had the connotation of "may it be so;" i.e., "kein y'hi ratzon," as
we mean it when we respond with "amein" when someone wishes us well, and as
opposed to the "amein" when we hear someone say a b'racha of shevach.
 Where are we told, by the one saying the shevach or hoda'a, to answer
"amein," as we are in cases where we are given a b'racha or where a bakasha
is made?

EMT

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> The last 3 berakhos are hodayah, not baqashah. The question is
> more why "Sim shalom" opens belashon tzivui, if we're supposed
> to be appreciating the peace and its consequences that He does,
> rather than requesting more peace.

It is not merely the opening word:

Sim
Barcheinu
V'tov b'Einecha l'varech

I count three places where the bracha is in the form of a request, but it
is difficult for me to see any thanks here. Perhaps the phrase "kee b'or
Panecha" is thanks, but to me it seems like a parenthetical explanation to
justify our request for shalom. The request for shalom is the ikar, and our
gratitude for Toras Chayim and Ahavas Chesed is the tafel.

While we're on this question, I'd like to point out that "Retzeh" contains even more requests, at least five by my count. How do we not call this a bakasha?

Retzeh
v'Hashev
T'kabel
u-T'hee l'ratzon
v'Sechezena
(not to mention Yaaleh V'yavo)

(One answer some might offer, is to look at the present-tense format of the
chasima: "HaShem *is* One Who blesses us with Shalom. HaShem brings His
Shechina back to Tzion. And we thank him for those things." -- But one who
proposes that answer will have to use the same logic on the middle brachos
too, and suddenly they will not be bakashos any more: We thank Him for
gracing us with daas, for being a Forgiver, for listening to our prayers,
etc.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly rich.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53ecc83c991ef483c59f7st04vuc

RMB writes:

>But thinking about it, two questions hit me:

>1- The smaller problem is what this would say about a congregation of 10
men and 11 women who are feminists who would feel slighted if none of them
got an aliyah. More people would feel >belittled by *not* calling her up.

>(The questions of whether not doing something is a kevod haadam issue, or
whether someone who takes offense for cultural or personal reasons is having
their kavod violated, etc... are all >discussed.)

>2- The bigger problem I had is that a person owns their own kavod. So, if
we define kevod hatzibbur in terms of the minyan as a quantum of Kelal
Yisrael, then the minyan doesn't own the kavod >in question and can't be
mochel it. But if the men in the minyan believe there is no slight to their
kavod by her getting an aliyah, why can't each be mochel.

>I therefore see this formulation as reason to be *more* meiqil, not
machmir!

>Did I misunderstand?

I am not sure why it is that we are necessarily going down this route
(without listening to hours of podcasts, maybe you can let me know).  As far
as I can see, my summary at:

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n039.shtml#08

still stands.  But for ease of reference (and because that post also
discussed a number of other matters), I will quote the relevant section:

<<In order to possibly have this discussion, you need to have some
understanding of what kovod hatzibbur is.

Not that that is easy, because the meforshim appear to differ in
their understanding. It seems to me that there are in essence three
understandings of kovod hatzibbur:

a) the Bach's understanding (in Orech Chaim siman 53) -- which is the
things that are required or assured mipnei kovod hatzibbur are just
ordinary takanos or gezeros of the hachachamim, except that they were done
for this reason -- the same way that the chachamim required or assured
mipnei darchei shalom or eiva or other reasons. Ie these are rabbinical
requirements that cannot (generally) be waived -- although when faced with
the extremely common minhag of rolling the sefer torah when one only has
one sefer torah in order to read the various maftirim on rosh chodesh or
yom tov or the like -- the Bach tries to say that when the Chachamim made
the gezera of not rolling the sefer torah, they only meant where it was
possible to fulfil the obligation to read these passages in another way,
as in, there was another sefer torah, but when there wasn't the Chachamim
never made their takana (see Orech Chaim siman 144).

b) the idea that kovod hatzibbur is like kovod haRav or kovod haAv or
alternatively like kovod haMelech. Therefore you get into the question of
whether one is permitted to waive one's kovod -- the general rule being
that a Rav or a parent is permitted to waive their kovod, while a king
is not. There is some discussion about whether there is a distinction
between a small tzibbur and the entirety of the people in this regard
-- some suggest that the entirety of the people or the majority of all
Israel at least is like the king, and cannot waive, but that what we
generally think of as a tzibbur can. Thus the Beis Yosef quotes the
Rambam and the Rashba as permitting the tzibbur to waive their kavod
(see Orech Chaim siman 53 and also 144) -- as well as the Mordechai and
Rabbanu Yerucham -- while he quotes the Rosh as holding that it cannot.

c) There are two different kinds of kovod hatzibbur -- one that is really
about tircha d'zibbura -- what we might define as the hassle of the
tzibbur, which the tzibbur is allowed to waive, and one that is really
about kovod Shamayim, which the tzibbur is not. While this also really
comes from the Bach in Orech Chaim siman 53, it is brought particularly
by the Taz (Orech Chaim siman 53 si'if katan 2). There he brings the
Bach regarding having a shaliach tzibbur whose beard has not filled out
"since indeed the kavod of the tzibbur in this is really the kavod of
Shamayim that he is intending to honour HaShem may he be blessed with
a Shatz that is fitting to be an advocate on behalf of the community
opposite HaShem... [and so rather learn] that indeed there is no mechila
in matters that concern kavod Shamayim." The actual language of the Bach
is as follows: "rather the explanation is that this is not kavod of the
tzibbur that they send before them to go up one who does not have beauty
of face [meaning a beard -- Shabbat 152a -- the beauty of the face is
the beard] to be an advocate for the tzibbur that even before a king
of flesh and blood we do not send to advocate for the community even if
he is a great chacham unless he is also of goodly stature and there is
to him a beauty of face that he has a full beard and all the more so
before the king of kings the Holy One Blessed be He and according to
this there is no place at all to say that they can appoint whomever the
tzibbur wants so as to be mochol on their kavod". One of the clearest
articulations of this twofold position I have found is in Shut Tzedek
u'Mishpat chelek Orech Chaim siman 4 (Rabbi Tzadkah ben Saadiah Chutzein
was a Rav in Syria 1699-1773) in the context of discussing the common
Sephardi custom of having more than seven aliyot when there is a simcha --
he raises the question as to whether the (interminable) shabbas morning
services thereby violates kovod hatzibbur if. And his comment is --
"but in our case that we multiply the readings [in the Torah] where it
is not necessary there is no blemish on the kavod of HaShem since what
blemish is it to HaShem if they remain in the synagogue one more hour,
but there is in this a trouble of the tzibbur while it does not touch>>

This is what I wrote then - and perhaps you could explain to me (so that I
don't have to wade through the podcasts) - how RTM is characterising matters
differently, to the extent he is, and what he means by kavod ha'adam?

Mostly of the sources that RDF/RAF brought, it seemed to me, effectively
refer to one of these three positions.  They did unquestionably if not
advocate, at least bring, a fourth shita - namely that kavod hatzibbur, when
applied to the case of women reading the Torah only (as clearly it only
applies there and not to the other cases were kavod hatorah is mentioned) -
is in fact about kalus rosh and potential pritzus.  The problem with this
approach is that it rather raises the question as to why the chachamim had
no qualms explaining that the issue was about kalus rosh and potential
pritzus when describing the tikun gadol on Sukkah 51b, and yet apparently
decided to hide the matter here behind a term that generally has other
meanings in other contexts.  I confess I personally find difficult an
approach that understands the Chachamim as using inaccurate terminology and
thereby considerably confusing the issue.  

Regarding beards, before I left Australia I once dated a fellow who, while
still unmarried, had a number of times led services on the Yamim Noraim
(generally in additional services of Mizrachi).  And, while not strictly
being a Lubavitcher, he had apparently asked Rabbi Groner about it, and he
told me that the thing that bothered Rabbi Groner most about it was not the
fact that the fellow was unmarried without children, but that he didn't have
a beard.  And while that seemed rather odd at the time, having read the Bach
and others on beards, I can now well understand where Rabbi Groner was
coming from.

Having/not having a beard in a shatz is surely the quintessential kovod
hatzibbur issue as discussed in the sources from a halacha l'ma'ase
perspective (women as we know, up until the current period has, except
perhaps in some exceptional village of kohanim that probably never existed,
been an entirely theoretical discussion).

But if you look at your three points above, how would you answer them vis a
vis beardlessness?  I don't think it has anything to do with whether the
majority of the tzibbur would feel slighted if they were not allowed to be
shaliach tzibbur because they themselves did not have a beard, or felt
indignant on behalf of those who don't (including those men who are
folically challenged, or perhaps are having chemotherapy).  That kind of
formulation seems very close to that of R' Sperber, ie that the issue is a
clash between kavod hatzibbur and kavod habriyos.  But I doubt that most
people would understand it that way.  Rather those that would allow a
beardless shatz would surely say that it is OK for this particular tzibbur
to prefer a sweet voice and sincerity to a beard, while acknowledging that a
tzibbur of Lubavitchers might completely legitimately insist that their
shatz indeed have a beard, especially as this should not be particularly
difficult to come by.  Or they might say that while in the time of the Bach
one would never dream of sending a beardless stripling before a king, any
more than one would send a woman, so how could you make such a person shatz,
today most would have no qualms sending a beardless man with gravitas and
dignity, and if such a man can stand before a king without the king's kavod
being slighted, then on the Bach's formulation, the kavod of the community
is no longer slighted by having a beardless man stand as shatz before the
king of kings.  


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Regards

Chana

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 02:26:02PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
:> Did I misunderstand?

: I am not sure why it is that we are necessarily going down this route
: (without listening to hours of podcasts, maybe you can let me know). As far
: as I can see, my summary at:
: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n039.shtml#08

Unless I grossly misunderstood, your goal was to explore the topic from
a clean slate. My own opinion is somewhere between the Frimers', yours
and RMTorczyner's, but isn't sufficiently ionformed to be worth adding
to the mix.

But the questions I shared yesterday weren't about a clean-slate
understanding of kevod hatzibbur. I was asking R' Aryeh Frimer or anyone
else interested in explaining his position. Which could be as simple as
pointing out how RMT or I misunderstood that position.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> The last 3 berakhos are hodayah, not baqashah. The question is
> more why "Sim shalom" opens belashon tzivui, if we're supposed
> to be appreciating the peace and its consequences that He does,
> rather than requesting more peace.

It is not merely the opening word:

----------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading a shiur (could've been VBM but I'm not sure) that the
last bracha is really not hodayah but rather part of birchat kohanim. I
might then say that this  might explain the "tzivui" since the cohanim
might be saying (a la what's said by viduo maser) we did our part now you
do yours (vsamu et shmi-vani avarcheim)
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.

RZS wrote: "Each cigarette smoked, over the fairly low threshold of one a
day, slightly increases the statistical likelihood that the smoker's life
will be shorter than it would otherwise have been. The evidence for this is
overwhelming, and only an idiot would, knowing this, nevertheless take the
habit up. But there is nothing in the gemara or in any rishon or acharon
that forbids a similar practice, which could be used as a precedent for
banning it."

 

Other than achronim and smoking, did halacha ever deal with similar issue?
Indeed, were there similar issues where, as RZS also writes, there was very
strong evidence that doing a particular act would shorten one's life?  IOW,
how important is the lack of precedence if we're dealing with a new
situation (which might be the case depending on the answer to my first two
questions)?

 

FWIW, I always understood R. Moshe's teshuva and reference to shomer pesaim
to really refer to people who were already smokers, because telling them to
stop would be similar to a gezerah she'eyn hatzibur yachol la'amod bah.  But
starting to smoke knowing what we now know would be assur (whioch is was the
pesak of his son-in-law, R. Tendler). And on that note, a personal story.
My father was a 2-pack a day man for many years, although he tried to stop
many times unsuccessfully.  Until one day, after his doctor told him that if
he didn't stop he'd leave his wife a widow and children orphans he went
through the following analysis:  Every week, I stop smoking for 25 hours and
I don't feel a burning desire during those 25 hours for a cigarette.  So if
I can do it for 25 hours, I can do it 24/7 (which used, in this case, is an
anachronism). And he never smoked again (and lived to 90).

 

Joseph 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140814/f4456d63/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)