Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 120

Monday, November 8 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:56:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
Subject:
Re: Conspicuous Consumption


Gershon Dubin wrote:



> 	The story is told about the Gerrer Rebbe,  whose takonos were previously
> alluded to on this list, being approached by a wealthy chasid who wanted
> an exemption from the rules to make a lavish wedding for his only
> daughter.  He told the Rebbe that he had plenty of money and only one
> daughter to spend it on.  The Rebbe is supposed to have answered him "if
> you have so much money,  go buy yourself a different Rebbe".



I've been following this thread with very little interest, thinking I
agreed wholeheartedly with those who would permit spending whatever, and I
still don't think we need takanot, but I had an interesting thought on
shabbat while reading the haftorah. Natan sent Batsheva to David to
alert/warn him about the malchut being snatched out from under him and
followed soon thereafter with the same news, but Natan added the complaint
that he wasn't invited to the party. What's the gemara (Baba Kama) say
about the 60 kinds of pain a person feels at being left out?

I can't really explain why it connected for me, but it occurred to me that
the Torah only tells us about two weddings. Lavan haArami, who was
probably not the most popular person around, given that he was a conniver,
a cheat and a liar, made a wedding and invited everyone in the city,
possibly thousands of people. Boaz (haTzadik), on the other hand, who was
so popular that we are told that he had 600,000 people following him at
all times, invited only ten old men to his wedding (who probably didn't
eat so much).

I drew some conclusions from this that I'll leave up to everyone else to
draw for themselves. 


---sam


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:05:10 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Fish


From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
> Subject: The Fish Sinned

> However, sometime during or after the mabul they must have sinned, 
> because that is what gives us the permission to eat fish.
	Is this a given-why would they have to have sinned in order for us to be
permitted to eat them?

Gershon


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:11:30 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: cholam=choilem=cheilem=chaulem=melo-foom


I always thought that the reason we say three times Kodosh is to be Yotzei 
Kol Hadeios Kodoish Kodeish and Kodosh :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:09:31 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Re: Was Rambam and Asceticism, now Torah uMadda


----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan J. Baker <jjbaker@panix.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Was Rambam and Asceticism, now Torah uMadda


> Note that "Chassidus says" is often taken, particularly by
> those raised in Chabad traditions, to be synonymous with
> "Chabad Chassidus says"...  I hope my quotes have shown
> that the two are *not* necessarily synonymous.
>
> Indeed.  But it reflects the Baal haTanya's pulling away from the
> idea of AbG as something that applies to "bechol deracheha daehu",
> and posits it instead as something that only applies to actual mitzvah
> acts.  I agree, it is "too convenient", since it allows people to define
> for themselves what is a davar reshus and what is a chovah.  By adopting
> the "original" Chassidic model, R' Lamm sidesteps the question of what is
> inside or outside the pale, by defining *everything* (including sins?
> - not clear to me - that's where antinomianism can creep in) as "good
> things": mitzvah acts which the Toldos Yaakov Yosef sees as coming
> through the mitzvah of removing negaim.
>

The dichotomy between Chabad and other Chassidus is addressed in my "Forks"
essay, based on the Piaseczner.

But, if anything, the argument that AbG can extend to CC can only be based
on Chabad. The Other Chassidic (OC) schools base the AbG approach on the
arousal and avodah with Nefesh (the Nefesh ha'Behamis). The OC schools are,
therefore, largely to an unjustified extent, criticized as
anti-intellectual. I would not agree with that stereotype - they produced
great scholars - but in their Avodas Hashem, they focused on Nefesh based
activitites and arousal (singing, dancing, etc.) for dveykus. It was davka
Chabad that focused on Neshama (the intellect). Thus, R' Lamm cannot argue
the TUM model based on OC philosophy. It is oxymoronic to speak of AbG bCC.
TUM nusach R' Lamm (and RAYHK's premise as well) can only be based on a
variation on the Chabad theme.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:20:12 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Secular Studies


FWIW, I picked up Dr. Leo Jung's book on Jewish Leaders (Jung was editor and not
author)  Therein on the bio of the Vilna Gaon it points out that he insisted on 
learning secualr studies and only refrained from botany which would have 
entailed living amongs the local non-Jewish peasantry.

It would seem fair to conculde that secualr studies are seen as enahcning Torah 
studies with 2 possible caveats:

1)  Perhaps while secular studies are ok secular institutions are not.
2)  Perhaps there are people who are not on the madreigo to handle them.





Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


I'm no expert on these matters, but didn't Rav Kook believe that one can 
elevate secular studies?

In other words, the fact that Chassidim--who for other reasons may have been 
against involvement in the secular world--did not give any hint as to the 
application of the model to secular studies should not bias us against 
applying the model.  Secular study, which is in essence the study of Hashem's 
creation (certainly in the case of the "hard sciences"; in the case of 
humanities, it is the study of Hashem's creations' creation), is undoubtedly 
different from pig, and the fact that its value has been affirmed by Greats 
from the Vilna Gaon to Rav Kook should give us a certain measure of 
confidence that the Chassidic model should be applicable.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:30:22 -0600
From: david.nadoff@bfkpn.com
Subject:
Shmiros - Follow Up


Many moons ago when we were on this subject we discussed
the following question:

>Rabbi Bechhofer asks (v3#171) if there is an earlier source than
>Chida + Maharshal for the tradition of the revelation to Moshe +
>Dovid of Tehilim 67 written in the form of a menorah and the
>placement of that image on Dovid's battle shield.  To the best of
>my recollection, the Chida in Midbar Kedaymos brings this tradition
>from a ksav yad of Maharshal that is no longer extant, and I don't
>remember whether the Maharshal's source is given. I will check this,
>b'lee neder, the next time I have convenient access to this sefer.
>I don't think we have this in any midrashim, but perhaps the >Maharshal had a midrashic source that has been lost. For what its
>worth, Yalkut Meom Loez on Tehilim cites the following sources in
>connection with this tradition: Akaydas Yitzchok, Kesef M'zukak,
>Dorash Moshe and Yosef Tehilos.

Of the sources last mentioned, Rabbi Bechhofer was most interested in
Akaydas Yitzchik, apparently the only rishon among them, and I said
I'd try to find the exact cite in A"Y when I have an opportunity.
B"H that day has come. A"Y discusses this in Sha'ar 67, ch. 4, where
he says is a kabala that mizmor 67 appeared on Dovid's shield in the
form of a menorah, and explains that mizmor at length. I still haven't
had a chance to follow up regarding the Maharshal's source, but the
statement in A"Y takes this tradition back to at least the 15th
Century.

Another source that someone requested during the Shmiros discussion
related to the following:

>In Hilchos Mezuza [5:4], Rambam notes the common minhag of
>writing the divine name Shakai on the back of mezuzos and seems to
>generally permit inscriptions on the back of mezuzos. I have heard
>and read that Shakai is so inscribed because it is formed of the
>roshay tayvos of the phrase "shomer dalsos yisrael."

I have, B"H, located a source for this as well in Be'er Mayim
Chayim onParshas Lech Lecha (vol. 1, p. 314 in the new edition),
where the author gives this explanation for the Shakai inscription
and says that it is added for purposes of shmira. I am reminded that
none of those on the list who challenged the use of shmiros to
one extent or another ever explained how this universal practice,
sanctioned even by Rambam, is consistent with their view.

It is a lovely coincidence (and, of course, there are none)that
the A"Y on mizmor 67 turned out to be in sh'ar 67, and that
the source for Shakai as standing for shomer dalsos Yisrael
turned out to be on p. 314 (the g'matria of Shakai)of Be'er
Mayim Chayim.

Kol Tuv,
David 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:13:10 -0000
From: "Charles Leichtag" <pf87@dial.pipex.com>
Subject:
RE: Rambam and asceticism


> On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> Well, I was mistaken about physicality being from Tzavaas haRivash.
> However, as has been noted before, ThR does differ from Chabad
> (and, incidentally, the Nefesh haChayim) on various points, e.g.,
> the relative priorities of learning and prayer.
>
> The Shivhei haBesht is paragraph 61. (tr. D. Ben Amos & J. Mintz, p.
> 80-81).
>

>> "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
>> Now, let us ask that someone who has a Shivcheii ha"best convey to us
what
>> it says there:

"I heard this upon the arrival of the Rabbi of the community of Nemirov.
Once on Simhath Torah the followers of the Besht were happy, dancing and
drinking a lot of wine from the Besht's cellar.

The Besht's pious wife said: "They will not leave any wine for the blessing
of the Kiddush and Havdalah," and she entered the Besht's room and said to
him:
"Tell them to stop drinking and dancing since you will not have any wine
left
over for the Kiddush and Havdalah."

The Besht said to her jokingly: "Well said. Go and tell them to stop and go
home."

When she opened the door and saw that they were dancing in a circle and that
flames of fire were burning around them like a canopy, she herself took the
pots
went to the cellar, and brought them as much wine as they wanted.

After a while the Besht asked her: "Did you tell them to go?"
She said to him: "You should have told them yourself."

Kol Tuv

Eli Leichtag


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:44:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Josh Hoexter <hoexter@wam.umd.edu>
Subject:
Rambam and asceticism chassidus subthread


I don't understand the analysis of the Tanya in this thread. Clearly Tanya
holds that a dvar r'shus is klipas nogah and this includes chachmos
chitzoniyos. While he does require utilization to be l'shem shomayim (TYY
doesn't?) I don't see how this is the complete opposite, if anything it is
merely more strict, and clearly not arbitrary (thus I also don't
understand the "too convenient" charge). Maybe I am missing an aspect of
the TUM philosophy - if it is l'shem shomayim, why wouldn't it fulfill the
criteria of Tanya (assuming one was up to the task)?


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:47:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Saul J Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu>
Subject:
brain Death


reb josh writes,
>Brain death: until September 1998, doctors were all so complacent about
>accepting a flat EEG trace as indicating brain death and *death* in
general.
>Then cama a startling paper in one of the neurology journals that stunned
>the medical community: people being in a coma on a respirator for more
>than a year suddenly waking up. This tremendously complicates the
>situation for heart transplants.     
 
i don't claim to be an expert in brain death, but as far as i can remember
from my lectures in medical school, a flat EEG is not, and never was, one
of the criteria
for determining brain death.  there are many criteria that are necessary
to prove that one is brain dead, i.e. that all of his brain functions have
completely ceased.
A physician must demonstrate that all brain stem functions and reflexes
are absent, and I don't see how an EEG can prove that.  Besides there are
many well known drugs that can cause a flat EEG tracing that clearly don't
cause brain death.
I searched the medical literature for this report and I have not found any
reported cases of someone who had been declared brain dead by a physician
who suddenly "woke up" after a year.  Waking up from a coma is not the
same as waking up from being brain dead.  The latter would truly be quite
astonishing and would certainly be an indicator of the coming of techiyas
hameisim.  It is true that an incompetent doctor, or one with
alterior motives might declare someone brain dead erroneously. 
However, if the strict criteria for brain death of the American Academy of
neurology are adhered to, the diagnosis of brain death is pretty clear and
straight forward.
In fact, not only are there no cases of waking up after brain death
reported in the literature, a recent article by a Dr. Alan Shewmon in the
December 1998 issue of Neurology only found 7 cases of people who had been
declared brain dead whose bodies survived for more than six months (none
of these "woke up") after their diagnosis. This was after a search of
every known reference published since 1966, both popular press and the
medical literature.
So I am not quite sure what Journal this case was reported in, and
apparently the medical community was not that stunned by anything in
September 1998.  I also truly hope that there are no doctors who would
rely solely on a flat EEG to diagnose death, which would be grossly
irresponsble, and a mistake that as far as I know, is not very common in
the medical community, if it even occurs at all.

Shaul Weinreb


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 12:52:35 -0500
From: "David Eisenman" <eisenman@umich.edu>
Subject:
Brain Death


RRW wrote:
<<Question: May one rely on the chazaka that brain death is halahcially
death and consider that the 1 in 1,000 exception constitues a mei'uta
d'mei'uta?>>

You don't even have to settle for a 1:1000 exception; the mi'ut is less
than 1:100,000 (an even stronger halachic category).  If anybody can
give me a reference to a documented case of someone properly pronounced
brain dead who then regained consciousness I'll buy them a cup of
coffee.  The halachic question is simply whether or not this is defined
as death.  If you don't accept brain death as death, the fact that a
person will never regain consciousness still does not define him/her as
halachically dead (as long as their heart is beating), in which case
rov/mi'ut are not at issue.

There is a widespread, lay confusion over the distinction between brain
death and persistent vegetative state. (see, e.g., 1. Cranford RE.
Discontinuation of ventilation after brain death. Policy should be
balanced with concern for the family. Br Med J. 318(7200):1754-5, 1999
Jun 26.       2. Swinburn JM. Ali SM. Banerjee DJ. Khan ZP. Ethical
dilemma: discontinuation of ventilation after brain stem death. BMJ.
318(7200):1753-4, 1999 Jun 26)  No physicians equate the two.  There is
some talk of late about allowing PVS patients to be declared dead if
they had a pre-morbid declaration that such was their desire (this, of
course, is halachically irrelevant). (see, e.g. Beresford HR. Brain
death. Neurologic Clinics. 17(2):295, 1999 May)

Interestingly, the "scare" implied by Josh may in fact become less
serious in the near future, as successful transplantation of organs from
non-heart-beating donors may become more common.  (see the review by
Laskowski IA et al
"Non-heartbeating kidney donors" in Clinical Transplantation.
13(4):281-6, 1999.)  Although non-heart-beating (non-breathing) donors
would presumably be more universally accepted as halachic candidates for
donation, the mechanisms for qualifying someone as such may face
halachic obstacles.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:16:55 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Re: R Yehudah HeChasid


Moshe Feldman wrote:

> --- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> > Where do the other Ba'alei Tosafos "make fun" of RYH?
>
> Look in Dr. S's article (I read it some time ago and may be quoting
> it incorrectly).  I do remember that there are parts of Sefer
> Chasidim which tell the Chasid not to pay attention to all the people
> making fun of him (the Chasid), and that Dr. S derived that the
> Ba'alei Hatosfot disagreed with the Chasidim.
>

Prof Yosef Dan in his work "Chassidus Ashkenaz" has one chapter
devoted
to  opposition to the movement. He states page 36 [my translation]
"The various groups of the chassidei ashkenaz formulated new
concepts in
spiritual manners and also in the prayer....It is natural to ask
what was
the response amongst their contemporaries concerning these
innovations...

          There is in our hands only a solitary source, one book
which is
difficult to precisely evaluate his position. However there is no
question that he is fully expressing his views in general on this
phenomenon. The sefer is call Ksav Tomim...composed by a halachasist
of
the 13th century Rabbi Moshe ben Chasdai Taku....[he] was from the
aspect
of halacha associated to the catagory of Baalei Tosfos. He wrote in
response to the words of Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid...It is important to
note
that the sefer was written before 1232 [but a few years after the
death
of Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid] when the great controversy concerning the
Rambam's writings broke out....It is interesting to note that he
doesn't
just attack Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid  but was mainly concerned with
attacking Rav Sadya Gaon and also the Rambam...It appears that he
made no
distinction - such as we do today - between mysticism and
philosophy. He
apparently viewed them as part of a unitary school of thought and
thus
they shared in common what he attacked ....He described their
writings as
"the new religion and new wisdom in our midst" and he made a further
link
between them and Yoshka and the Karaites...

We don't have adequate information to know whether Rabbi Moshe Taku
was
the single opponent expressing only his own views or whether it was
serving as the spokesman for others who agreed with him. It is
interesting to note that there is no evidence of the chassidei
ashkenaz
responding to his comments or attacking him."



                                                Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:41:01 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
re: The Fish Sinned


R' Micha Berger asks <<< Fish didn't require the teivah to survive the
mabul because they didn't sin. However, sometime during or after the
mabul they must have sinned, because that is what gives us the permission
to eat fish. >>>

Does it say somewhere that our permission to eat animals derives from
*their* sinning? I thought (based on R. Hirsch) that it was to prevent
people from equating the value of animal life with the value of human
life. This would apply to fish even if people sinned only with other
animals, and not with fish.

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:37:39 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: equal time


Dr Hendel wrote: <<< If I run the Charedi movement and issue a
proclamation to wear long sleeve shirts as halachah then I **must**
explain why I think it is Assur and what I think of people who wear short
sleeve shirts. if I don't explain this then Ihave created an atmosphere
in which ... >>>

As a layperson, I wish I could agree with this. Knowing the reason behind
a leader's decision makes it much simpler for me, because if I understand
it more fully, then I'll have a better chance at following it properly.

However, my experience as a parent has taught me that there must be
occasional exceptions to the above rule. A leader has a perspective which
the followers do not have, and sometimes the leader have to issue
directives without getting bogged down in explaining himself. Sometimes
this is because of reasons which the followers will not understand, or
reasons which should not be made public, and sometimes he issues decrees
simply to impress his authority upon his followers. We don't like to
admit that, but sometimes that is a legitimate cause.

To me, the concerns which Dr Hendel raises are real ones, and the leader
should take them into account when issuing that proclamation. But there
will be cases where the issue at stake is important enough to override
those concerns.

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:58:03 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
re: Yoatzos, once again


Dr Hendel wrote: <<< Let me put it another way....If you can't hold women
competent to know distinctions then you can't even hold them competent to
ask a sheeila >>>

R. Gershon Dubin responded <<< You are equating being able to ANSWER a
shaila to being able to POSE
one.  This is patently incorrect. >>>

I understood Dr Hendel differently. My understanding is that we do trust
women to decide whether or not a shaila is warranted in this situation.
When something happens out of the ordinary, whether in her kitchen or on
her bedika cloth, she is ***NOT*** required to ask a shaila every single
time. We ***DO*** rely on her to compare this situation to similar
situations, and to decide what to do.

Based on what she has learned, from whatever sources those might be, she
might decide not to worry about it, or she might decide to consider the
food treif (or the cloth tamay), or she might decide to bring the shailah
to a more learned person, such as her husband or the rav. If she decides
to ask the shailah, we rely on her to understand and follow the answer
she gets.

It seems to me that the above description meets the very definition of
"paskening" as we have been discussing for the past few months. Namely,
when a question arises, the person decides whether it straight-forward or
complicated; if it is straight-forward, he answers it himself, but if it
is complicated then he brings it to a higher authority.

In summary: The Torah allows a woman to decide whether or not to ask a
shailah when something odd happens, and that constitutes the very essence
of today's kind of paskening (i.e., non-Sanhedrin-type decisions).


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:44:46 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
The Fish Sinned(?)


Question:  isn't there a source for us getting reshus to eat animals because 
Noach our ancestor was responsible for rescuing them?  And since we did not get 
involved in rescuing fish, therefore we would not be entitled to eat fish - at 
least not on THAT premise. 

If someone can furnish the source of that statement it would be appreciated.

Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: re: The Fish Sinned 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    11/8/1999 1:41 PM


R' Micha Berger asks <<< Fish didn't require the teivah to survive the 
mabul because they didn't sin. However, sometime during or after the 
mabul they must have sinned, because that is what gives us the permission 
to eat fish. >>>

Does it say somewhere that our permission to eat animals derives from 
*their* sinning? I thought (based on R. Hirsch) that it was to prevent 
people from equating the value of animal life with the value of human 
life. This would apply to fish even if people sinned only with other 
animals, and not with fish.

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________ 
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! 
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:50:53 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Rambam and asceticism


Thank you. The story, then, has no direct bearing on the pleasure issue.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Leichtag <pf87@dial.pipex.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: Rambam and asceticism


> > On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
>
> > Well, I was mistaken about physicality being from Tzavaas haRivash.
> > However, as has been noted before, ThR does differ from Chabad
> > (and, incidentally, the Nefesh haChayim) on various points, e.g.,
> > the relative priorities of learning and prayer.
> >
> > The Shivhei haBesht is paragraph 61. (tr. D. Ben Amos & J. Mintz, p.
> > 80-81).
> >
>
> >> "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> >> Now, let us ask that someone who has a Shivcheii ha"best convey to us
> what
> >> it says there:
>
> "I heard this upon the arrival of the Rabbi of the community of Nemirov.
> Once on Simhath Torah the followers of the Besht were happy, dancing and
> drinking a lot of wine from the Besht's cellar.
>
> The Besht's pious wife said: "They will not leave any wine for the
blessing
> of the Kiddush and Havdalah," and she entered the Besht's room and said to
> him:
> "Tell them to stop drinking and dancing since you will not have any wine
> left
> over for the Kiddush and Havdalah."
>
> The Besht said to her jokingly: "Well said. Go and tell them to stop and
go
> home."
>
> When she opened the door and saw that they were dancing in a circle and
that
> flames of fire were burning around them like a canopy, she herself took
the
> pots
> went to the cellar, and brought them as much wine as they wanted.
>
> After a while the Besht asked her: "Did you tell them to go?"
> She said to him: "You should have told them yourself."
>
> Kol Tuv
>
> Eli Leichtag
>
>


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:53:40 -0600
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject:
Email file (BRAINDEA.TXT)


   Neurology 1998 Dec;51(6):1538-45

Chronic "brain death": meta-analysis and conceptual consequences.

    Shewmon DA

   Department of Pediatrics, UCLA Medical School, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

   OBJECTIVE: One rationale for equating "brain death" (BD) with death is
   that it reduces the body to a mere collection of organs, as evidenced
   by purported imminence of asystole despite maximal therapy. To test
   this hypothesis, cases of prolonged survival were collected and
   examined for factors influencing survival capacity. METHODS: Formal
   diagnosis of BD with survival of 1 week or longer. More than 12,200
   sources yielded approximately 175 cases meeting selection criteria; 56
   had sufficient information for meta-analysis. Diagnosis was judged
   reliable if standard criteria were described or physicians made formal
   declarations. Data were analyzed by means of Kaplan-Meier curves, with
   treatment withdrawals as "censored" data, compared by log-rank test.
   RESULTS: Survival probability over time decreased exponentially in two
   phases, with initial half-life of 2 to 3 months, followed at 1 year by
   slow decline to more than 14 years. Survival capacity correlated
   inversely with age. Independently, primary brain pathology was
   associated with longer survival than were multisystem etiologies.
   Initial hemodynamic instability tended to resolve gradually; some
   patients were successfully discharged on ventilators to nursing
   facilities or even to their homes. CONCLUSIONS: The tendency to
   asystole in BD can be transient and is attributable more to systemic
   factors than to absence of brain function per se. If BD is to be
   equated with death, it must be on some basis more plausible than loss
   of somatic integrative unity.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:06:58 -0500
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject:
Nukes and Nitzozos, ne'monus too.


I have been gone for some time and it is hopeless to catch up with
everything but skimming the accumulated clutter a few items caught my eye.  

1. Nuclear Proliferation. Not.   There was considerable imprecision in the
employment of this term. there is nobody out there in favor of nuclear
proliferation,.  who wants saddam with the bomb?  But that is not what
"activism" addresses as saddam or north koreans or iranians or a bunch of
really ticked off yeshaniks (li"h) are unlikely to be moved by their
protests. activists are generally simply anti-nuclear  (forget the
"proliferation") with their main angst coming from the existence of our own
weapons and an agendum that focuses on such matters as ratification of the
test ban treaty, outright nuclear disarmament, or at least pledges of
no-first-use. And these propositions are indeed controversial, at least for
anybody willing to think about them, and the self-evident assumption of the
activist, a number of responding posters, and of R. reisman (in the version
reported by the poster) that this is a good thing in principle and only
ancillary reasons (our small numbers, dissipation of focus from matters only
we will promote, etc) preclude devoting energy to this noble cause as well,
are matters where informed experts (modest blush here) will strongly
disagree.   Hopefully this e-mail will not induce any budding activists to
picket my house. 

As well, one frequently finds such anti-nuclear activism coupled to
anti-nuclearism in the civilian world as well in protests against civilian
nuclear power plants. One wonders whether R. reisman or any of our other
posters think there is a self-evident "jewish" position opposing
construction or operataion of power plants?  

2.  Chassidic Nitzozos.  I believe RYGB is incorrect in his assertion that
chassidic elevating of nitzozos is a constrained enterprise where not
everything is elevatable, absent a specific teaching (my own paraphrase).
His illustration of this proposition by pointing to divorim osurim is hardly
generalizable to the wide world of non-osur activities, and no one since
noson's exegesis of shabsai tzvi's derech ever suggested otherwise.  when i
have time (i'm headed back to an airport tomorrow) i'll try to provide some
explicit references.

3.  Osur.   RYGB's comment re the aramaic origins here are puzzling since it
is a perfectly fine hebrew word meaning something like tied up - e.g. yosef
was tossed in the clink, a place where the "asirei hamelech' were shtuffed..

5. i hate to pick on RYGB (just a figure of speech, sometimes its fun)  but
his comment on the lack of ne'emonus of an historical piece of work because
of the conservative affiliation of the author is hard to take seriously and
in direct opposition to the rambam's dictum "shima ho'emes mime she'omro".
the reductio ad absurdum of such a line of reasoning would have us reject
scholarly professional works by all the non-frum (no reason to single out
the conservatives), which would basically leave us without any reliable
history (or sociology, psychology, archeology, physics?)since the frum world
, as R. Chaim Ozer once pointed out, is not noted for the enterprise. or
maybe the renaissance or attila the hun also need to be moved into the
doubtful column.

6. R. yehudoh hechosid.  most definitely one of ba'alei tos. assuming you
don't remember or your last daf yomi cycle didn't include tos and don't have
the bar ilan cd,  mareh miqomos can be found in EE Auerbach's widely
available Ba'alei Hatosifos.  

7.  one of the more horrific articles i've read came to my attention last
week courtesy of delta airlines on a lonnnng flight from moscow.  the
newsweek article describing a secular journalist's re-engagement with his BT
brother and his accompaniment of the BT's pilgrimage to the Tosher rebbe's
canadian enclave was riveting and repellant. the invincible xenophobia,
know-nothingism, implied racism, and such like which were part and parcel of
this fellow's weltenshang comes through quite clearly even after
recalibrating for the obvious biases of the author.  The note from Mrs
Boulbil (note to the etiquette police - you guys need to come up with some
appropriately courteous female honorific to complement the generous e-mail
semikhas so freely bestowed on those of the male persuasion) describing the
group visit to meah shearim strikes a similar note.. Are these attitudes
characteristic of broader communities, and if so, which?

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil			H: (301) 593-3949


Go to top.


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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >