Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 33

Mon, 29 Oct 2007

• 1. Arab produce (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos/Rabbi shopping (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Abortion Psakim (was Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos) (Dov Bloom)
• 4. Re: Mikveh l'zona (Yzkd@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Avraham Avinu's Menu: Meshech Chochma P VaYera - BP MEAT is Parev (micha@aishdas.org)
• 6. Re: A few notes on Parshas Vayeiro (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Avraham Avinu's Menu: Meshech Chochma P VaYera - BP MEAT is Parev (yzkd@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Wrapping Tefillin in or out (SBA)
• 9. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos/Rabbi shopping (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos/Rabbi shopping (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos/Rabbi shopping (Arie Folger)

<<In the readers' reactions following the remarks, there was one
worthy of note.  Rav Aviner strongly makes the point that one should
not purchase from non-Jewish agriculture. ... The questioner
essentially asked why equal care was not given to this "issur" in
non-sh'mitta years as well.  And it isn't -- certain vegetables, such
as cucumbers, are almost all Arab produce.>>

First ROY paskens essentially the same as R. Aviner strongly defending
the heter mechira even for yeshiva students. He also mentions that one
should not buy produce from enemies.

As to cucumbers etc. this argument is frequently quoted but I have
never understood it. Firts of all much of it is from Israeli Arabs.
More important because one acts a certain way when there is no choice
doesnt mean that is appropriate behavior given a choice. Assuming that
all cucumbers come from Arabs in the Shomron does that justify buying
PA carrots when there is much Jewish carrots available?

and yes I know of stores in my hometown that try and buy only Jewish
produce all year around and not just Shemitta.

-- 
Eli Turkel

Erev Shabbas I wrote:

> RAF write:
> 
> > R'n CL wrote:
> > > I thought that, to the contrary, I suggested
> > > that for some people, a particular question may be so important to
> > > them that it shapes their whole hashkafic outlook on life, 
> > and hence
> > > they would indeed categorically exclude choosing someone
> > based on the
> > > particular desired answer to a particular question.
> > 
> > Well, I do have an issue with that. Our actions should flow
> > forth from our principles, don't you think so?
> 
> While this sounds like some sort of platonic ideal - we sit 
> an philosophise and develop principles and then act in 
> accordance with them, I don't think this is how things work 
> for many people (maybe it works that way for the people of 
> the Rambam's ideal).  If you don't want to hold by the idea 
> that most people are therefore a write-off (in which case, I 
> suspect, whatever you posken for them probably doesn't 
> matter), then maybe you need to legitimise the actual way 
> people end up drawing hashkafic conclusions, which would seem 
> to be a bit more bottom up than that.

I was groping on Erev Shabbas as to how to say what it is that I want to
say, and on Shabbas it occurred to me how perhaps I could say it better,
so here goes:

In Yevamos 116b the gemora brings a mayse shehaya about a woman whose
husband was bitten by a snake when he went out to the wheat harvest, and
she came and testified to beis din that her husband had died, and they
went and checked it out and indeed he had died, and at that point they
legislated that a woman is believed if she comes to beis din and says
her husband has died to allow her to remarry.  And the Mishna there
brings a machlokus between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai regarding
whether or not they believe a woman just in a case similar to the mase
shehaya or not - for example if the woman and her husband went to
midinas hayam and she testified about his death there, with Hillel
saying no it must be similar to the mase shehaya and Beis Shamai saying
not necessarily, and Beis Hillel eventually retracted and agreed to the
position of Beis Shamai.

Now one of the things about this case that fascinates me is that we know
nothing about this woman except that she changed the course of Jewish
history (think of the number of marriages and children that have
subsequently been permitted because of what happened to this woman).
Was she a particularly pious woman?  Was she a particularly non pious
woman?  Was she a completely average woman (and how was that
determined)?

But on a deeper level what this case illustrates (and I could have
brought you many other examples) is that Chazal tended not to work from
the platonic ideal and apply downwards, but tended to work from
individual cases and work upwards.  Even where they do bring a general
principle "v'zeh haklal" is it almost invariably preceeded by a list of
specifics, and I don't think that is an accident.  

Now you responded to a couple of situations I brought by referring to
them as "human interest cases" -and somehow that designation struck me
as not quite the right way to think about them.  Or rather, it struck me
as perhaps flowing from what I am tempted to describe as a Western based
on Greek method of thinking - where we start with our principles and
work downwards - hence my reference to Platonic ideal, with the
philosopher kings in the back of my mind.

But I don't think Chazal thought like that.   Rather, they seem to start
from the case, and then have a machlokus about the principle behind it
(eg is it because the woman will investigate herself to make sure that
she does not suffer the penalties if the husband does show up etc etc) -
it is a very bottom up way of doing things - starting on earth with real
cases and climbing to the heavens, rather than starting in heaven with
pure ideals and applying them to the earth and real cases.  I don't know
how to express it any better than this, as it is a hard concept to
articulate - but it is why it felt to me that there is something not
quite right about your statement that "Our actions should flow forth
from our principles" - albeit that I am finding it hard to explain
exactly why.  Hopefully this may make it a bit clearer.  

> > Arie Folger

Shavuah tov

Chana 

Chana L. wrote : If one or one's wife is pregnant with Tay Sachs child, knowing the machlokus regarding the permissibility (or advisability) of abortion ... can allow one to avoid R'X or his followers without actually asking R'X and seek out a talmid of R' Y.
Arie Folger wrote:  Here I have a problem, for the shoel is focusing on the outcome. ...Choosing between RMF and REWaldenberg's respective 
pessaqim in this matter isn't one of mere choice, aborting a child is, according to some, a toladah of murder.I am not invalidating REW's opinion, but I do feel that the shoel, too, must approach his role with gravitas.

In the recent flurry of articles about R Avrohom Elkana-Kahana Shapira ZT'L (RY of Mercaz Harav Kook and Rav HaRashi for 10 years. His shloshim was a few days ago) I read that he was asked if one should teach about lenient psakim on abortion. The questioner was referring to the Tzitz Eliezer (Chelek 9 Siman 51) and R Shaul Yisraeli. I think the feeling was R Avrum answered "mitzvah lefarsem divrei hamekilim".  The Tzitz Eliezer's tshuvot on the subject are well known, RSY perhaps less so, but he has a tshuva in Amud HaYemini Siman 32. 

R Unterman wrote an article in Noam and in his shut Shevet Yehuda and was mahmir and opposed the Tzitz Eliezer's psak. The Tzitz Eliezer who was on the Beit Din HaGadol then while R Unterman was Chief Rabbi, didn't retract his opinion and reiterated it later and actually strengthened his kulot. 

The Ben Ish Hai in Shut Rav Pealim has a very meikil tshuva in Helek Aleph Even HaEzer 6 with relation to rape victims, R Uziel has a tshuva where the mother has an eivar in danger. Sheilat Yaavetz 1 43 discussed unborn mamzeirim and is meikel. 

The subject is certainly "sheilot hamurot" but there are a wealth of psakim over the last few hundred years. The Ahiezer in helek gimel and ROY in an article he wrote "Hafsakat HaHerayon LeOr HaHalacha bring down tens of sources. 

An interesting quickie tshuva online in Shut BeMareh HaBazak (signed by R Shaul Yisraeli) http://www.eretzhemdah.org/hemdatyamimheb/5766/Yitro66/shutim.htm

 
 
In a message dated 10/26/2007 6:27:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:

Maharsha  and Tosfos say she 
was with Achashveros while she was a niddah. However  Rashi is 
understood  as meaning that  she went to the mikva for  Achashveros. This 
is rather difficult to understand since she obviously  couldn't tell 
Achashveros to stay away from her when she was a  niddah.



As per Shitas Tos. there is no proof to our case as she was an Ones  (as 
pointed out by the Maharsha, from Sanhedrin 74b ).  As to Shitas Rashi  Lan"d it 
is clear that the Tvilah was for Mordechai and "after" being with  Achasveirosh 
(the mikva was for being with Achsveirosh), as to the question of  Maharsha 
on Rashi why the term Tvila is used not Rechitza, see Yavetz because  there is 
a Tumah Drabonon of Ziva on a Goy, so again no proof to our case.   From the 
Maharsha there is a Mashmous that there would be a need for Tvila if so  why 
should she not be required to go afte
 
Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071027/b0bcbc84/attachment-0001.htm 

We have that norm about calling all the men "R'" for good reason. Once I tell you rhat RYZ is a noted Crown Heights poseiq and on the beis din there, would you feel funny about having referred to him without title?

Of course, for all I know, you hold a similar posiition in your community, or the answe is otherwise "no". Just a head's up.
Shetir'u baTov!
-Micha
R' Micha Berger <micha@aishda.org>
(Sent by PDA. Please excuse any extra errors caused by my choosing timeliness over having the right tool and quiet.)
-----Original Message-----
From: "Meir Rabi" <meirabi@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Saturday, Oct 27, 2007 10:36 am
Subject: [Avodah] Avraham Avinu's Menu: Meshech Chochma P VaYera - BP MEAT 	is Parev
To: <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>Reply-To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>

Yitzchok Zirkind responded to, How does the Meshech Chochma know that BP may be cooked with milk?
 
 See Pischei Tshuva Y"D 87 ois 14, and Darkei Tshuva ibid s"k 72, for  
 Machlokes Achronim on this and their Limudim.
 
 
 I checked the PT to be sure of my recollection, have not the DT on hand to verify my memory but both of these discuss the MILK of the BPekuah being Chalav Shechutah which is an established Halachah: milk extracted from a slaughtered cow is not Milchig. However no one to my knowledge, other than the M'Ch, suggests that the MEAT of the BP is nor Fleishig.
 
 meir
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_020D_01C818FA.A2BDAF90
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
       
Yitzchok Zirkind = responded
to, How does the Meshech Chochma know that BP may be cooked with =
milk?To:  Reply-To: A High-Level Torah Dis

 
 
R Akiva Miller writes:


>>Regarding Yishmael, R"n Toby  Katz wrote:
> Second of all, all his sins of "AZ, GA and shefichas  damim
> and that he went out 'letarbus ra'" were subtle -- he  hadn't
> yet done anything obvious and overt.

Please give me an  example of committing shefichas damim in a "subtle"  
manner.<<



>>>>>
Sarah saw Yishmael "playing" with Yitzchak.  Yishmael played a  William Tell 
kind of game with Yitzchak, playing with his bow and arrow in such  a way that 
Yitzchak's life was in imminent danger while Yishmael was maintaining  
plausible deniability -- arranging a terrible "accident" for his dear  little 
brother.   He had not yet actually committed a murder but he  was already a murderer 
in the making -- which Sarah saw, and Avraham did  not.





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



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071028/1c3f77de/attachment.html 

However no one to my knowledge, other than the M?Ch, suggests that the MEAT of the BP is nor Fleishig.

?

I remembered that this was discussed allready on Avoda, so I did a search and found it at:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol21/v21n011.shtml#10?(is it the same person asking?). In any case I understood the MC as meaning that the MILK was from a BP, by the mere fact of his quoting the Shaar HaMelech, and not quoting anyone or any Raya WRT the MEAT.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind







________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071029/bfdcf6b6/attachment.htm 

From: "Menachem Posner" < 
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer < > wrote:
  Has anyone ever seen a reason why Ashkenaz wraps tefillin coming in while
Sfard wraps going out
-
This is discussed in "Minhag Yisroel Torah Hi" which I don't have access to
at the moment.
>>

If you are referring to the sefer "Minhag Yisroel Torah" by RY Levy, I just
checked it out and though it bring various minhogim for wrapping the retzuos
on all parts of the arm and hand - it does not address RYGB's question.

SBA

On Sunday, 28. October 2007 00.18:08 Chana Luntz wrote:
> Now one of the things about this case that fascinates me is that we know
> nothing about this woman except that she changed the course of Jewish
> history (think of the number of marriages and children that have
> subsequently been permitted because of what happened to this woman).
> Was she a particularly pious woman? ?Was she a particularly non pious
> woman? ?Was she a completely average woman (and how was that
> determined)?
>
> But on a deeper level what this case illustrates (and I could have
> brought you many other examples) is that Chazal tended not to work from
> the platonic ideal and apply downwards, but tended to work from
> individual cases and work upwards. ?Even where they do bring a general
> principle "v'zeh haklal" is it almost invariably preceeded by a list of
> specifics, and I don't think that is an accident. ?

[Crawling out of self imposed lurk-exile ...]
I believe that there is a major difference between 'Hazal and contemporary 
cases, partly because nowaday it is possible to go pessaq shopping, which, 
when there was only one beit din per city, was impossible. And I didn't even 
begin talking about the legislative powers they had (Sanhedrin was still 
around, etc.), which we don't have.

IOW, I find that while your argument that pessaq worked and sometimes may 
still work (that needs further analysis) partly bottom up, this in no way 
justifies the shoel looking for a particular outcome.

In fact, from another sugya, in Ketubot 23a, about a woman, and later two who 
says that she was imprisoned but remained tehorah, we see how it was 
preferable to manipulate the reality (making sure that the daughters of Mar 
Shemuel came to beit din while the captors were kept at a distance -- a weird 
situation, where the captors would be willing to wait at a distance. Either 
the captors had been caught, or they were government forces confident that 
the women could not disappear under their watch, having numerous forces with 
them. The latter is indicated by Rashi s.v. Deatyyan liNharda'ah, where he 
explains that the women came to be redeemed).

Of course, one might argue that there was no one who would have ruled 
leniently once having met the captors, so this argument of mine isn't yet 
watertight.

[back into self imposed lurk exile...]
KT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RAF writes:

> [Crawling out of self imposed lurk-exile ...]
> I believe that there is a major difference between 'Hazal and 
> contemporary cases, partly because nowaday it is possible to go pessaq

> shopping, which, when there was only one beit din per city, was
impossible. 
> And I didn't even begin talking about the legislative powers they had 
> (Sanhedrin was still around, etc.), which we don't have.

I am not saying that we are, or can be Chazal, I was just trying to show
that there are, or may be, other ways of thinking, perhaps even more
Jewish ways, that we may not be employing and that we may be missing key
aspects in the way we are operating.

> IOW, I find that while your argument that pessaq worked and 
> sometimes may  still work (that needs further analysis) partly bottom
up, 
> this in no way justifies the shoel looking for a particular outcome.

Let me go back to the case of the Rav who told my friend to keep trying
when we all know there is a very simple heter that should (and because
she psak shopped was) employed in this case to enable her to have
children.  Is it not crystal clear that after 120 years, when this Rav
goes to face the din emes, if my friend had in fact followed his ruling,
then this Rav would have been held accountable for the children (and all
the countless generations possibly after them) that did not exist, not
to mention the enormous suffering of my friend and her husband, that he
had caused?  In fact did not my friend, on a deeper level do this Rav a
big favour, because now his din will only be dealing with theoreticals,
not actuals.

Now as you have agreed, this case is arguably exceptional and deals with
very fundamental matters.  And yet ...  If we say that there is genuine
suffering if a person puts their hand in their pocket thinking that they
have a certain larger coin, and all they find is a smaller coin - if a
Rav rules unecessarily in a way that causes a person to have financially
less than they thought they had, then is not that Rav accountable in the
ultimate din emes for any pain so caused?  Of course the key word is
*unnecessarily*.  If the ruling is necessary, then obviously the Rav
must rule in such a way - although even then, one of the reasons given
why the Mitzrim were punished for afflicting the Yidden, even though it
had been fortold and clearly was part of Hashem's plan was because they
took pleasure in it (the other of course was because they inflicted more
than they were required which is the other limb of this).  

That is, there is a lot of focus on the shoel, and the avodah of the
shoel, but, it seems to me, very little on the meshiv and his yiras
shamayim.  After all, we already know something about the shoel.  In
this day and age, when there is tremendous freedom not to accept the
yoke of the Torah, the shoel has already demonstrated a) their fidelity
to mitzvos by asking; and b) their humility and honesty by not trying to
posken themselves out of all the books etc that are available.  Two
points already in favour of the shoel.  But the meshiv - what about his
yiras shamayim?  What about his avodah?  You see, I guess I suspect that
if the shoel really felt that the meshiv understood the full extent of
the impact of the psak on him and his life and sympathised/empathised
with his difficulties with it and was available to help in perfecting
that avodah, psak shopping would be almost non existent.  And if the
meshiv were prepared to be a bit more bottom up about things, and
genuinely try and understand the level of difficulty and/or pain that
the psak would cause, not to the meishiv if he needed to ask a similar
question, but to the shoel in the circumstances of the shoel, and really
believed that he would be accountable for that pain if the psak was
unnecessary, again I think that would unquestionably communicate itself
to the shoel and would make psak shopping far less likely.  

But the problem it seems to me today so often is that psak appears glib.
I don't believe that this Rav can possibly have genuine yiras shamayim
if he could have responded to my friend the way he did.  How could he
live with such a din against him?  And while a lot of cases are about
far more trivial things, or things that may seem more trivial, - it
seemed to me the point of the story about the egg being brought many
miles was precisely that what might have seemed trivial to many was in
fact not trivial at all to the shoel.  Now you can argue that it is nice
and easy for me to say.  It is all very rough to give psak with all the
consequences that accrue, and I am nice and out of the system by
definition, thereby making it easier to snipe from outside.  On the
other hand, perhaps being out of the system, with a complete ptur from
this kind of responsibility, makes it easier for me to see the enormity
of that responsibility and the extent to which it seems to be being
ducked. Psak shopping to my mind may well be a symptom of a deeper
problem, and not necessarily a cause.
 
> In fact, from another sugya, in Ketubot 23a, about a woman, and later
two who 
> says that she was imprisoned but remained tehorah, we see how it was
preferable to manipulate the reality (making sure that the 
> daughters of Mar  Shemuel came to beit din while the captors were kept
at a 
> distance -- a weird situation, where the captors would be willing to
wait at a 
> distance. Either the captors had been caught, or they were government
forces 
> confident that the women could not disappear under their watch, having

> numerous forces with them. The latter is indicated by Rashi s.v.
Deatyyan 
> liNharda'ah, where he explains that the women came to be redeemed).

Or they did teshuva I guess.  I am not sure that this is really a case
of manipulating reality though.  Here the women have demonstrated two
things to the beis din a) they have somehow sufficient control of the
captors to be able to get them to wait at a distance and b) their state
of purity was important enough for them to arrange for all this to
happen and they were clever enough to do so.  That seems to me to be a
strong raya that nothing happened - because the two situations where
things are likely to happen are a) when the women can't prevent it - ie
the captors are determined to take by force; and/or b) it is not
important enough to the woman to prevent it, ie it is easier to be
seduced rather than go to whatever lengths necessary to prevent
relations (assuming that the captors are not the type who are prepared
to force)).  i

>
> [back into self imposed lurk exile...]
> KT,
> -- 
> Arie Folger


Regards

Chana

On Sunday, 28. October 2007 13.31:03 Chana Luntz wrote:
> Or they did teshuva I guess. ?I am not sure that this is really a case
> of manipulating reality though. ?Here the women have demonstrated two
> things to the beis din a) they have somehow sufficient control of the
> captors to be able to get them to wait at a distance and b) their state
> of purity was important enough for them to arrange for all this to
> happen and they were clever enough to do so.

No, in the case of the women who originally came to Neharda'ah, it was Mar 
Shemuel's father who arranged for the women to come sans captors to beit din.

BTW, manipulating reality isn't necessarily bad. If Avuha diShemuel did it, it 
was right (as the Gemara implies with the story how Shemuel's own daugthers 
eventually were taken prisoners).

Regarding the captors, I frankly doubt they did teshuvah, otherwise the sugya 
would have been about whether a captor-turned-BT can testify about things he 
did before repenting, and how ein adam meissim 'atzmo rasha' applies here. I 
am rather inclined to believe that this was a standard practice by the 
government appointed tax collector or otherwise some form of Jew harrasment 
by government forces.

Regarding your [here unquoted] argument that we should not only worry about 
the yirat shamayim of the shoel, but also of the meishiv, I am sure we all 
agree. However, that would not bear as much on the general issue of the 
nature of pessaq, which we have been discussing here (remember, we started 
with the fact that there can be two seemingly conflicting rulings given to 
two similar people, and yet both are valid. This was to research whether 
pessaq halakhah is "mathematical" or not), but rather on a different issue, 
of whether an erroneous pessaq renders it nonbinding, which is treated in the 
halakhic literature. (ta'a bidevar mishnah etc.)

[now really back to lurking...]

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 33
**************************************

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..."