Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 88

Fri, 03 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Other Leading Rabbis Forbid Anisakis Worm in Fish (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Other Leading Rabbis Forbid Anisakis Worm in Fish (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: pikuach nefesh (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: pikuach nefesh (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Other Leading Rabbis Forbid Anisakis Worm in Fish (Harry Maryles)
• 6. Re: ein shaliach lidvar aveirah (Arie Folger)
• 7. Ein SheLiAch LeDeVar Aveira (eliez...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: the godfather is innocent, should you want to punish him? (Zev Sero)
• 9. The Anisakis Fish Ads: What It All Means (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: The Anisakis Fish Ads: What It All Means (Micha Berger)
• 11. The Anisakis Fish Ads: What It All Means (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: ein shaliach lidvar aveirah (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: the godfather is innocent, should you want to punish him? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 14. Re: the godfather is innocent, should you want to punish him? (Micha Berger)
• 15. kimu v'kiblu, purim, (Harvey Benton)

There is still something I don't get... Anisakis worms have been
in Mediterranean fish since at least the Ancient Greeks, who mention
them. Are we saying the tannaim and amoraei EY ate treif? Quite possibly
bemeizid, since we're talking about an infestation already mentioned in
the Ebers papyrus (circa 1550 BCE), and by Aristo, Hyppocrytes and Galen
(2nd cent CE)? (Who also mention that it's the source of anisakiasis,
a similar infestation in a human patient r"l.)

We have been doing this for a while now, revisting old situations and
coming up with pesaqim that defy the old norms. Halachic process allows
for this, but not when it's motzi laaz al harishonim.

(But I'm with RRG -- another person who doesn't eat fish and wouldn't
understand why anyone would want wormy fish anyway...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:39:56AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I recall a Shiur wherein Rav Ahron Soloveichik discussed this
: issue. Yitzchak Lampronti the great 16th century author of the Pachad
: Yitzchak (who was also a physician) decided to overturn the Psak of
: Chazal because of new information. He said that since Chazal did
: not have the advantage of microscopes they did not know that lice
: reproduced sexually. Had they known they would have said that killing
: lice on Shabbos is Assur. I recall Rav Ahron saying something like,
: "If the Pachad Yitzchakm were alive today, they would put him in Cherem.

R' Dovid Lifshitz said the reverse of the PY -- since the eggs are
microscopic, they don't exist. For that matter, when the maggots or lice
hatch, they are also non-existent and thus kosher.

Scientifically, a treif bug would be a zeh vezeh goreim. It requires (1)
a tiny bug that has no halachic mamashus, and (2) the food it then eats
to grow to visible size. RDL said in shiur that since only one of the
two goremim have halachic significance, the only goreim for the visible
bug that we do care about is the meat.

And thus the halakhah would remain unchanged.

...
: As it relates to the anisakis worm controversy, it seems that the reverse
: is true. Rav Dovid Feinstein is now advocating essentially the same
: position as the Pachad Yitzchak. He says that now that we can observe
: that these worms can migrate rather to than be created within the flesh
: of the fish -- we are now forbidden to eat it.

But as per my previous post, this isn't due to our having access to
better information. The complex life cycle of the anisakis nematode was
described before there was a Chazal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 10:23:36AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: CI has a question: C an one divert a grenade to save many people but it will
: fall
: on a few. CI remains with a safek. R. Zilberstein in many shiurim seems to
: tend towards allowing it (it has many practical applications). I believe the
: Tzitz Eliezer does not allow based on the CI' safek

This is the "Trolley problem". Here is how Philippa Foot formulated it:
    A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its
    path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad
    philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead
    the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there
    is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch
    or do nothing?

And to make it more difficult, Judith Jarvis Thomson posed the "Fat
Man problem" variant:
    As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You
    are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by
    dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a
    very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to
    push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save
    five. Should you proceed?

This variant, also by Thomson, I find trivial:
    A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in
    need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that
    organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any
    of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler,
    just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for
    a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor
    discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying
    patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear,
    no one would suspect the doctor.

And to make it a real nightmare, here is a real question asked of a rav
in the field (in Berut, IIRC) during Lebanon I, as I recall RARakeffetR
retelling it:

A few soldiers are sent into a building to check if it's safe before
the main body of troops takes it over. They make it to the roof, declare
it safe, and dozens of other boys enter the building. The building is
then blown up, burying them all.

May you bulldoze away the few bodies at the top of the mound, certainly
killing or hastening the death of one, so as to reach the far greater
number of soldiers further down as rapidly as possible? It would give
you the greatest chance of saving the most lives. But the bulldozer
operator would be actively killing.

May the Almighty spare me such decisions.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 10:23:36AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: CI has a question: C an one divert a grenade to save many people but it will
: fall
: on a few. CI remains with a safek. R. Zilberstein in many shiurim seems to
: tend towards allowing it (it has many practical applications). I believe the
: Tzitz Eliezer does not allow based on the CI' safek

This is the "Trolley problem". Here is how Philippa Foot formulated it:
    A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its
    path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad
    philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead
    the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there
    is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch
    or do nothing?

And to make it more difficult, Judith Jarvis Thomson posed the "Fat
Man problem" variant:
    As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You
    are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by
    dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a
    very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to
    push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save
    five. Should you proceed?

This variant, also by Thomson, I find trivial:
    A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in
    need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that
    organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any
    of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler,
    just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for
    a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor
    discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying
    patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear,
    no one would suspect the doctor.

And to make it a real nightmare, here is a real question asked of a rav
in the field (in Berut, IIRC) during Lebanon I, as I recall RARakeffetR
retelling it:

A few soldiers are sent into a building to check if it's safe before
the main body of troops takes it over. They make it to the roof, declare
it safe, and dozens of other boys enter the building. The building is
then blown up, burying them all.

May you bulldoze away the few bodies at the top of the mound, certainly
killing or hastening the death of one, so as to reach the far greater
number of soldiers further down as rapidly as possible? It would give
you the greatest chance of saving the most lives. But the bulldozer
operator would be actively killing.

May the Almighty spare me such decisions.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

--- On Thu, 6/2/11, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> But as per my previous post, this isn't due to our having access to
better information. The complex life cycle of the anisakis nematode was
described before there was a Chazal.
?
----------------------
?
But?are we sure?the anisakis nematode the same worm descrined by Chazal? Or is it something entirely different?
?
HM 
Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110602/9beca54c/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS wrote that a crime boss ought to be considered blameless al pi din
Torah, since the moral imperative is on the actual actor. He claims that
that is the moral import of ein shaliach lidvar aveirah.

However, I am afraid Natan haNavi disagrees, as he told David regarding
Uriah haChiti Ito haragta becherev bending 'Amon, calling David a murderer
even though he did not act in this story; he merely gave orders.

--
Arie Folger
visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110602/713b0ad9/attachment-0001.htm>

I was criticized for having cited the Rambam and the Sifrei that indicate
that sometimes the malefactor is punished more stringently than for the
usual Lifnei Iver.  I don't know why one would criticize the messenger. 
The problems you have are with the Rambam and the Sifrei, not me.
 

 


Eliezer Eisenberg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110602/c23b00a8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/06/2011 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:12:14PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Good point; you're right.  Now my question becomes why he's responsible;
>> a hired killer is not like an animal, after all.  Unless you say that once
>> a person has disclosed to you that he's depraved (e.g. by advertising his
>> services as a hit man) you have to treat him like an animal who has no
>> bechira?  I don't know; it doesn't sound quite right.
>
> Back a step... What's the border between ein shaliach lidvar aveirah,
> mesayei'ah, lifnei iveir (not that I think that applies, I'm just trying
> to map out the whole field), the chotei umachti and the meisis.

Well, I thought I had meisis covered.  His crime is the attempt itself,
and he's just as guilty if he fails as he is if he succeeds.  The Torah
says "ki vikesh".


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

Please see http://tinyurl.com/3ujhyzm

For an enlargement of the ad at the beginning of the article see 
http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/anisakis.jpg

 From this URL

"Rav Yisroel Dovid Taub, the Modzitzer Rebbe in Flatbush, who has 
written a lengthy teshuvah on this topic, has been quoted as saying 
that although Rav Elyashiv has said that these fish are forbidden to 
be eaten, nonetheless, in a personal conversation with Rav Elyashiv, 
Rav Elyashiv related that he did not have the energy himself to 
analyze and investigate all the factual and statistical information 
that this shailah involves, and he therefore based his ruling solely 
on the research performed by the bais din of Rav Shmuel Halevi 
Wosner. There have been those who have contended that the factual 
material presented to Rav Wosner's bais din was not entirely 
accurate. Others defend its accuracy."

Personally, I find the following from this URL

"When asked about this, Rav Dovid Feinstein, rosh yeshiva of Mesivta 
Tiferes Yerushalayim, responded that he never spoke to his father, 
Rav Moshe, about this, adding that he has not researched the issue 
himself and therefore cannot issue his own ruling. He did note that 
Rav Elyashiv is machmir.

"Many of the Chassidishe poskim have permitted the consumption of the 
fish containing anisakis based upon the rulings of Chassidishe poskim 
of the previous generation who were consulted at that time.

"The issue remains a machlokes amongst poskim, and every person must 
follow the ruling of his or her rov."

disturbing in light of what was posted at http://tinyurl.com/44lrysp, namely,

"Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, the leading halachic decisor in the United 
States, has come out strongly forbidding the consumption of fish that 
contain the worms."

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that sheilos in America should be 
decided by knowledgeable American poskim and not by poskim in 
EY.   Orthodoxy in EY is very different than it is in America, and it 
is my understanding that a psak may depend on "local conditions."

It is just this sort of back and forth that tends to drive people up 
the wall.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110602/45b20213/attachment-0001.htm>

RHM asked if the anisakis of Chazal's day, that has been living in the
Mediterranian since the Mitzriyim and named by Aristo, is the same as
ours found in our oceans today. I can only think to repeat RNSlifkin's
comparison of the issur on salmon with anisakis with a new issur on
bee honey. Would you ask whether maybe today's bee wasn't the same that
makes the devash of the derashah?


On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 03:23:09PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> For an enlargement of the ad at the beginning of the article see  
> http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/anisakis.jpg
...

This brings up the meta-issue of how halakhah works. And therefore gives
me an opening to re-post what I wrote on the 5 Towns Jewish Times site
and RDE's blog.

Rabbi Yair Hoffman writes on 5TJT
<http://www.5tjt.com/international-news/10569-conflicting-ka
shrus-rulings-translated>
which opens:
    So what do you do when you open up the newspaper and find two
    diametrically opposed Kashrus rulings and letters from leading
    Poskim? The newspaper was Wednesday's issue of the HaModiah and the
    two ads appear on pages D5 and D14 respectively.

That paragraph frankly scared me.

What a sad comment on the fall of normative halachic process! We
apparently have gotten so used to deciding things for ourselves based
on English popularizations of the halakhah that the obvious answer is
missing. You aren't supposed to decide halakhah from letters in the
newspaper.

Halakhah is detemined by consensus, not majority. You don't need to find
the one true halakhah -- if there are still conflicting letters from
gedolei haposeqim, there isn't one. (And even that's unclear, one of the
signatores is also on record refusing to pasqen about anasakis.) So what
do you do?

Go to your own poseiq! Yes, that's right, Judaism is supposed to be
based on a personal relationship with one's mentor. You get a pesaq from
someone whose path in Torah observance is similar to yours, who you know,
and who knows you well enough to know where you are holding and what
you're capable of.

Pesaqim in newspapers? It just doesn't work that way. The ads have value,
informing LORs that there is an issue to research. But you can't decide
halakhah for yourself from newspaper ads!

We have become neo-Karaites, we turn to texts. No concept of the value
of shimush rabbanim -- the quality that recommended Yehoshua as Moshe's
successor and the loss of which created such doubt and confusion in
the days of Batei Hillel veShammai. Judaism is supposed to be a living
tradition; Oral Torah is after all, oral. "Asei lekha rav"!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

Please see http://tinyurl.com/3ujhyzm

For an enlargement of the ad at the beginning of the article see 
http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/anisakis.jpg

 From this URL

"Rav Yisroel Dovid Taub, the Modzitzer Rebbe in Flatbush, who has 
written a lengthy teshuvah on this topic, has been quoted as saying 
that although Rav Elyashiv has said that these fish are forbidden to 
be eaten, nonetheless, in a personal conversation with Rav Elyashiv, 
Rav Elyashiv related that he did not have the energy himself to 
analyze and investigate all the factual and statistical information 
that this shailah involves, and he therefore based his ruling solely 
on the research performed by the bais din of Rav Shmuel Halevi 
Wosner. There have been those who have contended that the factual 
material presented to Rav Wosner's bais din was not entirely 
accurate. Others defend its accuracy."

Personally, I find the following from this URL

"When asked about this, Rav Dovid Feinstein, rosh yeshiva of Mesivta 
Tiferes Yerushalayim, responded that he never spoke to his father, 
Rav Moshe, about this, adding that he has not researched the issue 
himself and therefore cannot issue his own ruling. He did note that 
Rav Elyashiv is machmir.

"Many of the Chassidishe poskim have permitted the consumption of the 
fish containing anisakis based upon the rulings of Chassidishe poskim 
of the previous generation who were consulted at that time.

"The issue remains a machlokes amongst poskim, and every person must 
follow the ruling of his or her rov."

disturbing in light of what was posted at http://tinyurl.com/44lrysp, namely,

"Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, the leading halachic decisor in the United 
States, has come out strongly forbidding the consumption of fish that 
contain the worms."

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that sheilos in America should be 
decided by knowledgeable American poskim and not by poskim in 
EY.   Orthodoxy in EY is very different than it is in America, and it 
is my understanding that a psak may depend on "local conditions."

It is just this sort of back and forth that tends to drive people up 
the wall.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110602/e3bd6733/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/06/2011 2:47 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> RZS wrote that a crime boss ought to be considered blameless al pi din
> Torah, since the moral imperative is on the actual actor. He claims
> that that is the moral import of ein shaliach lidvar aveirah.
>
> However, I am afraid Natan haNavi disagrees, as he told David regarding
> Uriah haChiti Ito haragta becherev bending 'Amon, calling David a
> murderer even though he did not act in this story; he merely gave orders.

But Yoav had no choice but to obey that order; he was *obligated* al pi
din to obey it.  So in this matter he was no more than an automaton, and
David was the real actor.

In any case, the whole case is different, because al pi din David was in
the right.  He *wasn't* a murderer -- his real crime was chilul hashem.
As is often the case, the problem was in the coverup rather than the
original incident.  By acting in this sneaky way instead of openly trying
Uriah for insubordination, he made it appear to be murder, and made people
suspect his motives.  That's very different from a godfather who tells
people to do things that are actually wrong, and that they know to be wrong,
and that they have the choice to refrain from.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> Rambam, Rotzeich U'shmiras Hanefesh, 2:2-5, specifically,
> the end of Halachah 2.

That paragraph should be required reading for this thread. But beware! Taken out of context -- i.e., without Halacha 3 -- it will be terribly understood.

Halacha 2 does equate one who hires a murderer with the one who throws the
victim to a lion, in that both are exempt from capital punishment. However
it seems clear to me that Halacha 3 there explains that this is a
technicality, specifically due to the way certain pesukim were phrased.

Thus, it seems to me that the p'tur for one who throws the victim to a lion CANNOT be expanded to the general principle of "ein shaliach l'dvar aveira."

And if so, then the case of the hired murderer might also not be
all-encompassing. It could well be that although the one who hires a
murderer is exempt from capital punishment on the technicality of the
pesukim, there might be other cases where "ein shaliach l'dvar aveira"
doesn't apply and the hirer IS responsible.

This brings us into the areas of grama and such, which I am not
knowledgable enough to comment on. But if there are any precedents in
halacha for pinning responsibility on the human who sends an animal to do
something, I suspect that those precedents might be useful for the case of
sending a totally innocent and unwitting yeshiva boy.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4de7ebeb74d0d1ad99ast04vuc

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 07:58:48PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Halacha 2 does equate one who hires a murderer with the one who
: throws the victim to a lion, in that both are exempt from capital
: punishment. However it seems clear to me that Halacha 3 there explains
: that this is a technicality, specifically due to the way certain pesukim
: were phrased.

Never mind 2:3, 2:2 itself is clear. "Shofeikh damim hu, va'avon hariga
beyado, vechayyav mishah lashamayim, ve'en bahem misas BD". The godfather
is guilty. In fact, 2:5 tells BD to punish him both corporeally and in
prison, despite the inapplicability of misah. (And even killing him is
allowed as a hora'as sha'ah when needed -- 2:4.)

Ein sheliach lidevar aveirah doesn't apply here -- "hassokheir horeig
... shofeikh damim hu."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

With Shvuos approaching next week, i was wondering about a few basic tenets of 
our relationship to God via the acceptance of the Torah:
1. Why is the Torah binding if given to us by force? The answer often given is 
that we re-accepted it during the times of Purim. What then was the Torah's 
status upon us in-between Har Sinai, and the times of Purim? 
(Another simpler answer is that a government or governing body (or hashem for 
that matter) does not  have to ask its constituents if they agree to the terms 
of their given law. That would apply to those present at the formation of  the 
society or government, and by extension, to those born later into that same 
society.)
2. Is an agreement forced upon or given to, or made by a soul binding upon a 
body, or even a body associated (whole or in part) to a given soul at a later 
date? It is said that our souls were all at Har Sinai at the giving of the 
Torah. 2a. does that bind our bodies now? 2b. were all of our souls there at the 
times of Purim? 2c. Were some souls present at Sinai but not at Purim?
If yes, where does that leave us.....
Thanks much, and Shavuos Tov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110602/6446cef1/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 88
**************************************

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..."