Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 25

Mon, 01 Jan 2007

• 1. Re: Chanukah--miracle of the oil vs. miracle of the victory (Michael Kopinsky)
• 2. Re: Chanukah--miracle of the oil vs. miracle of the victory (Michael Kopinsky)
• 3. Re: Changing Havarah (Michael Kopinsky)
• 4. Re: Chanukah--miracle of the oil vs. miracle of the oil (Michael Kopinsky)
• 5. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (Michael Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: Chanukah--miracle of the oil vs. miracle of the victory (Moshe Feldman)
• 7. FW: RE: Chanukah--miracle of the oil vs. miracle of the oil (Zvi Lampel)
• 8. Re: IVF (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (T613K@aol.com)
• 10. Re: IVF (T613K@aol.com)
• 11. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Jacob Farkas)
• 12. Re: IVF (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Changing Havarah (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Al Pesach Beiso MeBachutz (Mike Wiesenberg)

On 12/31/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Actually, all three focus on Chanukas haBayis, as does the name of the
> holiday. Barring some word-play on chanu k"h.

...which apparently only makes its first appearance Tikkunei Zohar, in any
case.

On 12/31/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Actually, all three focus on Chanukas haBayis, as does the name of the
> holiday. Barring some word-play on chanu k"h.

...which apparently only makes its first appearance Tikkunei Zohar, in any
case.

On 12/31/06, A & C Walters <acwalters@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> The Rabeinu Bechaye in parshas vayero says that someone who changes a komotz
> to a pasach could lead to kefira.

On which word does he say this? (Just so I can look it up.)

Since pretty much every havara has duplicates for some letter or vowel,
examples such as these are numerous.  "Hayom harath olam", in ashkenazis,
means "Today is the destruction of the world."  That doesn't mean
ashkenazim should start differentiation between saff and samech, since our
minhag/kabballah/traditional mistaken dialect does not differentiate, and
it is unclear which, if any, of those problems we can reverse.  (Which is
what this entire discussion is about.)

Is the book of Maccabees the same thing that some Christians include
in their Bible?  I remember hearing that there are two similar books
on Chanukah, one reliable and one not (or, one accepted by Jewish
tradition, one not).  I thought that one is the book of Macabbees and
the other book of Chasmonaim, but I'm not sure.

On 12/31/06, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> > Is cold really a reason not to light outside?  I mean, we all bundle
> > up in our coats and manage to make it to the car, and then from the
> > parking lot to work - does it take that much more time to go outside,
> > place your already-prepared menorah in its box, and light the candles?
> >  I mean, cold can make it difficult, but sakanah?  This is not quite
> > like sleeping in the sukkah, where there exists a much more
> > significant concern.
>
> 1. The "invention" of lighting in a glass box is fairly recent; it may not
> have occured to anyone earlier.  In addition, glass was expensive, and
> most people would not have been able to afford it.

I was referring to specifically to current practice, not questioning
earlier minhag.  For someone who was willing to light some of the nights,
clearly this was not an issue.

> 2. While sitting with the nerot may not be formally a part of the mitzvah,
> it's certainly part of hiddur mitzvah and common minhag, and an opportunity
> for chinuch; the "experience" of yiddishkeit that RMB praises in another
> context.  This would be lost if one bundled up, took the nerot outside
> to light them, and then went back inside.  Or at least I'd feel that way.

Ein hachi nami.  This is something that each person has to weigh for
himself.  Though, this doesn't have to be a problem.  At the people I
stayed with for one of the nights of chanukah, the baal habayis lit
outside, and the kids (and I) lit inside, and we did sit with the candles
and sing, etc. inside.  I don't think the absence of one of the menorahs
in any way detracted.

> 3. Leaving nerot outdoors unattended may well be considered a sakana.
> Even if the circumstances are such that it's not an actual sakana of
> starting a fire, it could frighten the neighbours who don't realise how
> safe it is, and that itself can be a sakana. (Cf the heter to put out
> house fires on shabbat, for fear that the goyim will accuse us of
> trying to burn the town.)

Would *your* goyish neighbors be scared that 8 small flames safely
contained in a glass box, hanging on the non-flammable brick wall would be
a fire hazard?  I don't think mine would.

(And where does this heter about fires on shabbos appear?)

> 4. Leaving the menorah outdoors exposes it to a sakanah of being
> stolen.  This wouldn't be enough to override a de'oraita, but it's
> certainly enough to override a prat in the ideal way the rabanan
> recommended that a mitzvah derabanan be practised.  Cf the heter to
> put a mezuzah on the inside of the front door instead of outside,
> if it's likely to be stolen.

Again, I don't think my menorah would be stolen.  Especially if you're
watching, and would notice if some suspicious person approached your front
door and walked off with your menorah, this is not an issue.  And if
someone was willing to light outside on the days when it wasn't cold out,
he has showed that this is not a concern.

> 5.  Since the default practise was to light indoors, even when the
> sakanah ended people needed a reason to go outdoors, and would
> accept any excuse not to.  The cold would have provided such an
> excuse to keep the established practise.

True, excuses can always be found.  But since today we live in an era
where it is normal to examine every religious practice, even against
tradition (see Haym Soloveitchik's Rupture and Reconstruction), we were
asking if we *should* be lighting outside.

To tell the truth, if/when I am home with my family for chanukah, I doubt
I will light outside, just because I don't want to make waves in the
family about something which is only an optimal kiyum, just like in many
other issues where I don't insist on my own chumros.  But when I have my
own house, and can do things my way, I will have to reevaluate this
question and see if there really is any significant reason to light inside
b'zman hazeh.

I leafed through a recent scholarly edition of Megillas Ta'anis, by Prof.
Vered Na'am.  She notes that the Ksav Yad Parma is probably the more
reliable girsa when it comes to the part dealing with Chanukah, while Ksav
Yad Oxford seems meshubash.  Ksav Yad Parma does not mention the Nes Pach
Shemen, and says that Chanukah is celebrated for eight days because the
Chashmonaim made a menorah out of spears and were involved with this for
eight days.  Ksav Yad Oxford does mention the Nes Pach Shemen, but the
version cited by Or Zarua v.2 siman 321 [arguably] does not; in any case it
states that they spent eight days rebuilding and rededicating the mizbe'ach
and menorah made out of spears (covered with wood).    (It's not clear to me
that Or Zarua is actually quoting the Megillas Ta'anis.)  Whichever girsa is
correct, it does seem from the Oxford ed. of Megillas Ta'anis that the
reason that Chanukah was established for eight days is primarily that that
is the number of days it took to rededicate the mizbe'ach, and that the
miracle of the oil is secondary to that.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070101/ee9db5d9/attachment-0001.htm 

(Something went wrong with the posting of my submission last time. Instead of my remarks, it reprinted RMF's post, to which I was responding. Let's try again:) 

Sun, 31 Dec 2006 from: "Moshe Feldman" moshe.feldman@gmail.com wrote:

...see David Berger's article at
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/11/human-initiative-and-divine-providence.html 

Rabbi Berger wrote, to answer why the miracle of oil is not mentioned in Books of the Maccabees I or II:
"1. ...Given the author's consistent historiographic approach, we can be almost certain that he would not have recorded this miracle even if he knew about it.
2. ...  II Maccabees is an abridgment of a five-part work by Jason of Cyrene which has been lost.... To Jason--or to the man who abridged his work--it may have seemed trivial..."
Rabbi Avigdor Miller suggests another solution: These works were composed after the Hashmoneans became Saducees, and they therefore omitted any mention of the miracle upon which "those rabbis" has based (one year after the event) yet another post-biblical takkana.

(I don't recall, and can't look it up right now, but do the Books of Maccabess even mention a kevia l'doros of the Chanuka celebration? If not, it would be introducing another curiousity and strengthening this answer.)
I was still troubled by the lack of the miracle's mention in Al HaNissim, and appreciate Rabbi Berger's explanation that...
"The absence of a reference in Al ha-Nissim, which is a thanksgiving prayer, need not trouble anyone. The miracle of victory requires thanksgiving; the miracle of the oil does not, and it is appropriately omitted."

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070101/1de1814b/attachment.html 

He was against it in principle even from the husband though the problem of mixup
was an additional though not the only objection.
To be clear his is a minority opinion and the opinion of RMF has been
generally accepted.

kol tuv

Eli

On 1/1/07, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> RET writes:
>
> >>I believe that the Tzitz Eliezer was very much against IVF.<<
>
>
> Even with husband's sperm?  Or was he under the mistaken impression that IVF
> is necessarily done with (non-husband) donor sperm?  If he was opposed to
> IVF even using husband's sperm, what was his objection?  The method of
> obtaining sperm?  The difficulty of ensuring that the lab didn't mix up
> different people's samples?  Other?
>
>
>
> --Toby Katz
> =============


-- 
Eli Turkel

 
 

RZS writes:
 
>>So it remains theoretically *possible* that the stars visible  before
4 millin are all what Chazal called "gedolim", and only the ones  that
become visible then are "beinonim", and perhaps the "kochavim  ketanim"
are ones that are too small or distant for us *ever* to see with  the
naked eye <<
 
>>>>>
I don't buy it.  There is no way Chazal could have spoken of "kochavim  
ketanim" and intended the average person over the last 2000 years to understand  
that term to mean "invisible stars."  It is just too  implausible.




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061231/29e1acfb/attachment-0001.htm 

 
 
RET writes:
 
>>I believe that the Tzitz Eliezer was very much against  IVF.<<


 

Even with husband's sperm?  Or was he under the mistaken impression  that IVF 
is necessarily done with (non-husband) donor sperm?  If he was  opposed to 
IVF even using husband's sperm, what was his objection?   The method of 
obtaining sperm?  The difficulty of ensuring that the  lab didn't mix up different 
people's samples?   Other?




--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061231/2474af00/attachment-0001.html 

R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
> : If I eat meat from a plant that doesn't pay its workers on time or
> : transgresses Tza'ar Baalei Chaim, the plant owner goes to Gehenom. If 
> I eat meat that isn't kosher, _I_ go to Gehenom. Hence, no discussion vis-?-vis
> : the plant owner's responsibility.

As we are not the arbiters deciding who goes to Geihinom and for what, I 
think it would be best to stick to the Issurim involved rather than 
supposing the Oneshim for their transgressions.

There is nothing Mehadrin to buy food from a cruel company, one known to 
be abusive to its workers. Not paying on time is not the real issue 
(albeit an important one), failing to provide adequate safety training, 
coupled with unsafe working conditions, leading to accidental 
amputations is more along the lines of the discussion of companies who 
are not Yosher.

Furthermore, does not your argument invalidate the reasoning behind the 
El-Al boycott?

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> If we as a kehillah refused to buy from someone who didn't follow
> choshein mishpat or caused tza'ar ba'alei chaim, he would have the
> financial insentive to stop. As individuals, are we not mesayei'ah
> lidevar aveirah by not participating in such boycotts?

The company only has incentive to stop if there are other options. The 
lure of lower prices and lack of other options can only be challenged by 
religious incentive, loss of Hekhsher, or boycotts led by Rabannim.

> BTW, it's very hard for a plant to violate tza'ar ba'alei chaim. It takes
> very little benefit to people for tza'ar to be technically permissable.

Not so difficult to violate either actual TZBH or akhzariyos...

In http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n079.shtml#08 I quoted the 
Trumas Hadeshen (most lenient position regarding TZBH and profit)

"Trumas HaDeshen [Volume 2 siman 105] has a different approach
altogether. He considers animals to be created for man's use, D'lo 
nivre'u kol habrios raq l'shameish es haAdam, and therefore, should 
there be a profit involved in a process that could be detrimental to the 
animal, it would still be permitted, as the needs of the person outweigh 
the condition of the animal. TZBH, in his view, is limited to needless 
pain and suffering that have no bearing on human benefit (profit being 
human benefit in his view).

Nevertheless, Trumas HaDeshen does conclude, that although there is no
Issur of TZBH, there are reasons to avoid cruel practices as they are
nonetheless considered Akhzorios. He brings as an example the story of
Rabbee and the calf, where Rabbee suffered for years as a result of his
behavior towards the calf, although Shehitah is permitted."

--Jacob

On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:04:26PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: RET writes:
: >>I believe that the Tzitz Eliezer was very much against  IVF.<<

: Even with husband's sperm?  Or was he under the mistaken impression  that IVF 
: is necessarily done with (non-husband) donor sperm? ...

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Waldenberg>. REYW was,
among other things, the rabbi of Shaarei Tzedeq. You can assume he knew
the metzius. The only question would be whether the person reducing a
teshuvah to a one liner got it right.

In 15:45 he writes that a child conceived outside the womb is not
halachically related to its biological parents.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

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

On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 09:38:16AM -0500, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: Nevertheless, Trumas HaDeshen does conclude, that although there is no
: Issur of TZBH, there are reasons to avoid cruel practices as they are
: nonetheless considered Akhzorios....

But one could only run a certification service to protect against
violating halakhos with rigorously defined limits.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

Michael Kopinsky wrote:

> Since pretty much every havara has duplicates for some letter or vowel,
> examples such as these are numerous.  "Hayom harath olam", in ashkenazis,
> means "Today is the destruction of the world." 

No, it doesn't.  Because (unlike many Temanim), we do distinguish between
patach and segol.  Nor is it "today He destroyed the world", because we
distinguish between patach and komatz.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

As I already pointed out in Volume 5, Issue 16, RYSE
has a teshuva where he refutes the Dvar Yehoshua's interpretation of
those rishonim. The back and forth is brought down in the Piskei Teshuvos.
                                                 Mike

>>> The fact that originally there was a din to light outside is
>>> irrelevant; chazal were mevatel it
>
> My source is Shu"t Dvar Yehoshua
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070101/dcde0cea/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 22, Issue 25
************************************

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..."