Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 022

Monday, August 17 1998

• Correction to Pirkay Avoth and Monica Lewinsky Posting
• R. Hendel's analysis of the issur of hotzas zera levatalah
• Re: The Biblical Roots of the Masturbation Prohibition
• Re: Impeachment, historical evidence and Chazal
• Mis'asek
• Re: Mis'asek
• Re: A Suggested Approach to Gematria in Midrash
• Re: Mis'asek
• Re: Mis'asek
• Re: Mis'asek
• Re: Mis'asek
• The Biblical Roots of the Masturbation Prohibition RE: Avodah V1 #21
• Re: Mis'asek

I presented my posting on Monica and Pirkay Avoth to the people in my
synagogue who pointed out errors (which I am surprised were not caught
on this list).

1) First I confused two Braythoth on avoiding sin (Av 2:1 and Av 3:1)
The correct Braytha lists the following 3 things

You avoid sin by
          * Realizing God prohibited things (but that doesn't always work)
          * Realizing that sin leads to death(but that doesn't always work)
          * Realizing that you might get caught

2) >>Sin leads to death<< can be interpreted as e.g. an excess of affairs
might lead to the type of life where sickness prevails; working 7 days
a week vs 6 days might lead to high blood pressure and other symptoms
of stress which can lead to death.


There is no intention of being causal: Sin automatically leads to death.
Rather the intention is that excesses of certain types of sins leads to a
bad life style that CAN accelerate early death. The classical commandments
deal with RESTRAINT in areas of PASSION. It is well known that excessive
giving into PASSIONS leads to early death. The areas in which this occur
are those commandments dealing with food, intimacy, work etc.

The connection between the language of the braytha, >>getting caught<< and
the current headlines has been hinted at in my previous posting and I don't
see the need to reiterate it here explicitly

3) One fellow congregant asked me about the ORDER in the Braythah. (The
question is the following: The ORDER listed in number 2) above is different
than the order in the mishnah.

The simplest answer to this is to say that Braythah is addressing BOTH
people who were brought up religiously and people who became religious.

--Those who were brought up religiously (Use the order of the Braythah)
          * First teach children that God prohibits sin
          * When they grow up they will see that the sinful life
                    (sometimes) leads to early death
          * Finally they see that the sinners >>get caught<< and pay
                    either legally or socially for their sins

--Those who became religious (who never >knew< about God)(Use REVERSE order)
          * Usually people first think of becoming religious when
                    they get caught (Yes! I am aware there are others
                    who spontaneously want to become religious)
          * This doesn't necessarily stop them from sin. Since if you
            really want to you can avoid being caught. But then they
           see that the sinful life can lead to early death.
          * Again: This doesn't always stop people since it is usually
            excessive sin that leads to early death. But rather these
            people become aware of groups of people who believe in God
            and do things for the right reason and not for fear of
            consequences.


4) Finally: One of the Rabbis in my synagogue pointed out the 
gmarrah in Bracoth:
          >>Rabbi Yochana Be Zakai was visited by his students
          on his death bed and was asked for a blessing.
          <<May your fear of Heaven be as strong as your fear of man>>
          was the response. <<Is this all you can bless us with>>
          <<Indeed. Know that when a person sins he says to himself
          <I hope no one sees me>>>. 

In passing, last time I cited this Chaiim Brown protested. Perhaps he
has changed his mind.

Russell Jay Hendel Phd ASA RHendel @ mcs drexel edu
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

 Normally I wouldn't not have bothered to respond to  Dr. Hendel's
explanation of the issur of hotzas zera levatalah ("hzl") since it seems
to be so much inconsistent with any statement that Chazal or the rishonim
have said on this issue and there is not the  slightest hint in any
source that it is based upon the issur of causing pain. JUst to quickly
quote some sources off the top of my head, the Gem. in Niddah 13b really
the whole amud but for example " any person who brings himself to arousal
is not allowed within the domain of Hashem" where it is clearly an
intrinsic issur, the comparison to adultery etc. BUt more importantly the
Gem. in Avodah Zara 20b "THat you should guard yourself from evil that
you should not have illicit thoughts during the day that will produce
seminal emissions at night" and the Tos. d"h shelo who says that this is
an isur deorisa which obviously shows that "hzl" is assur from the TOrah
and has nothing to do with d'rabbanan of not causing pain etc. etc.
HOwever, what I feel must be responded to is the claim that the words of
the Zohar are" witty pun-->>(temple) desecration
of the holy convenant<< by which they sought to compare masturbation 
which involves the organ of circumcision with which we have a >treaty<
with God with the very severe Biblical prohibition of desecrating
the temple objects and offereings which are also a >treaty<. 

The severity with which they regarded masturbation has filtered down
to various law books and tends to color masturbation discussion with
a severity that a rabbinic prohibition does not deserve. " To so
disrespectfully dismiss the words of the ZOhar and the SHulchan Aruch in
Even Haezer 23 is not at all in keeping with a TOrah hashkafa and am sure
is just a reflection of a poor choice of words.

SHraga ROthbart

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Russell Hendel wrote:
<<< The recent thread on masturbation has received some excellent posts.
However no one has really yet dealt with the Biblical commandment under
which this rabbinic commandment is classified. >>>

I have always been under the impression that masturbation is a Torah
prohibition, related to Bal Tashchis. This can be seen clearly in the
phrase "hotzaas zera L'VATALA". Virtually any time the poskim discuss
relations between husband and wife, the operative rule seems to be that
all emission of semen is totally prohibited, unless *any* justification
can be given for it, which then renders it permissible. The classic
example is where the wife cannot become pregnant, relations are still
allowed because the wife will enjoy it. This is what led me to start this
thread, asking why it would be permissible in a situation where the wife
does not object, but won't enjoy it either, and also cannot get
pregnant.)

Dr. Hendel's post challenges my above thoughts, and claims that while
coitus interruptus is a Torah prohibition, masturbation is "only" a
rabbinic prohibition. I have been looking in the seforim, and on the one
hand, I admit that I have been unable to find any source which
*explicitly* ties masturbation to any known issur d'oraisa. On the other
hand, I cannot find any source which *explicitly* shows it to be only a
d'rabanan either. (For the sake of clarity, let's concentrate on
masturbation; all will agree that coitus interruptus is d'oraisa.)

If it can indeed be demonstrated that masturbation is not assur d'oraisa,
then Dr. Hendel will have offered a reasonable explanation of why the
rabbis forbade it, but that is a two-step process, and I am hung up on
the first step. Can anyone find a source which explicity give the reason
for the prohibition? It seems that the seforim are so busy trying to
impress us with the severity of the issur, that they neglect to give any
sources for it. (See for example, Aruch Hashulchan, Even Haezer 23.)

Thank you

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

The Clinton hype has gotten me to thinking if there is any halachic
mechanism for impeachment.  It is possible to dethrone a king - the
Yerushalmi in Horiyot says that while David haMelech was running from
Avshalom, if he had done a cheit he would have brought a normal korban
rather then a korban of a nasi (this is cited by R' Elchanan Wasserman).
However, Avshalom was unjustified in his action; it was an illegal
rebellion.  Is there a legal mechanism by which a king can be dethroned
(other then if he violates a misas B"D sin and is killed)?  Any b'kiyus on
this?

Just to comment on something YGB posted last week: are we bound to follow
midrashei Chazal when there is historical evidence (not from Chazal) to the
contrary?  Can't we seperate the realm of pshat from the realm of drash, as
do many meforshim when they interpret pesukim in a way that contadicts a
Midrash but fits the text better?

-Chaim B.

As we took a field trip yesterday (my daf yomi shiur and I) to do some
practical shimush in Eruvin, we came to discuss how one can rely on a Rav
HaMachshir in Hilchos Eruvin, seeing that the construction of eruvin is so
complex and subject to easy error. We discussed the concept of mis'asek,
i.e., that since Shabbos is contingent on Meleches Machesheves, if one
thinks that there is a valid eruv because a reputable Rav has states such,
then even if there turns out to be a problem with the eruv, no issur has
been transgressed.

Last night, I realized, that this creates an halachic irony, in that,
while Shabbos is far more severe than Kashrus, one really must check out
kashrus standards to a far greater extent, for, in forbidden ffods we have
the principle that "mis'asek b'chalavim v'arayos chayav sheken neheneh" -
there is no mis'asek by forbidden foods or relations.

Thus, in effect, while in Shabbos it is only the Rabbi who will go to
Gehinnom (figuratively speaking) if he certifies a non-kosher eruv, in
Kshrus, you, the consumer, are going to burn with him! Thus, by kashrus,
caveat emptor is far more pertinet.

Speaking about misa'sek b'arayos, I feel very strongly that recent
discussions here, in particular Russell's long post on "HZL - which, to
me, besides its explicit nature, also seemed to inappropriately include
rulings of a Halachic nature - are way out of bounds. When the Gemara in
Chagiga forbids public discussions of matters of arayos, I believe this
is the type of conversation they meant to forbid, and I think, therefore,
that halacha requires cessation of the conversation.

YGB

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

I'm afraid I don't understand.  "Misasek b'chalavim v'arayot" means you
have a piece of cheilev and a piece of shuman and meant to to eat the
kosher one and accidentally took the wrong one.  It is a mistaken ACTION.
If you think a piece of meat is kosher and discover it is treif you are not
at all mis'aseik - you are shogeg, and the proper p'tur applies!  (See
Rashi in Kritut 19 who makes this clear).    It is a mistaken ASSUMPTION.
If that assumption was formed because of being somech on a eid echad (yes,
a housewife can guarantee the food in her house is kosher, no Rabbi is
required), then I imagine you might get off with "ones" - which is based on
a parsha of arayot, and I don't see why it shouldn't apply to chalavim
v'arayot.  It is not the same as mitasek.

The whole question of "How can you rely on someone when the laws are so
complicated", is, and please excuse me, absolutely ludicrous.   I am amazed
in my community at the number of people who are "machmir" about not using
the eiruv but couldn't tell you why because they don't know the first thing
about hil. eiruvin!   Along the same lines someone told my wife that girls
shouldn't be taught about heating food with "kedairah al gabi kedairah"
because it is confusing and they might be michalel shabbos.  Yes, halacha
can be complicated, but the antidote is competence through learning and
shimush, not avoidance.

-Chaim B.

In a message dated 98-08-13 21:37:53 EDT, you write:

<< 
 APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE TO ToTaFoTH:
 -------------------------------------
 THE REAL REASON: Many radicals with TF refer to "smallest amount"
 ----------------
 TF=Child= a droplet of a person; NTF=droplet=droplet of perfume;
 NTF=Pearls=droplet of ornament; TFCh=INCH = droplet of measurment.
 
 Thus TTF would be a droplet of ornament and would denote a small ornament.
 This is in fact consistent with the Biblical reference in KI TISAH
 that the Jews removed their ORNAMENTS (EDYAM) which most commentators
 think are their tefillin. The plural of TTF = TTFoTH would denote
 a >multi (plural) ornament< (Since tefilin have many chambers)
 
 THE FORM OF THE DERASH: This uses the fact that TT and PT in foreign
 -----------------------languages mean 2 and 2. So that TToPhoT = the
 4 chambered tefillin.
  >>
Has anyone heard another hesber as to why the gmora in this case darshens from
a foreign language(katfi which assumedly has no inherent kdusha or objective
definitional properties)?

Kol Tuv
Joel

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

> I'm afraid I don't understand.  "Misasek b'chalavim v'arayot" means you
> have a piece of cheilev and a piece of shuman and meant to to eat the
> kosher one and accidentally took the wrong one.  It is a mistaken ACTION.
> If you think a piece of meat is kosher and discover it is treif you are not
> at all mis'aseik - you are shogeg, and the proper p'tur applies!  (See
> Rashi in Kritut 19 who makes this clear).    It is a mistaken ASSUMPTION.
> If that assumption was formed because of being somech on a eid echad (yes,
> a housewife can guarantee the food in her house is kosher, no Rabbi is
> required), then I imagine you might get off with "ones" - which is based on
> a parsha of arayot, and I don't see why it shouldn't apply to chalavim
> v'arayot.  It is not the same as mitasek.
>

Shogeg requires teshuva and kappara, mis'asek does not. If one ingests
chicken assumed to be kosher, but turns out to be treif - one is at best
shogeg - bacause there is not exemption of mis'asek - and therefore
requires teshuva. If one carries where one assumed there was an eruv, but
turns out it was pasul - no teshuva is required.
 
> The whole question of "How can you rely on someone when the laws are so
> complicated", is, and please excuse me, absolutely ludicrous.   I am amazed
> in my community at the number of people who are "machmir" about not using
> the eiruv but couldn't tell you why because they don't know the first thing
> about hil. eiruvin!   Along the same lines someone told my wife that girls
> shouldn't be taught about heating food with "kedairah al gabi kedairah"
> because it is confusing and they might be michalel shabbos.  Yes, halacha
> can be complicated, but the antidote is competence through learning and
> shimush, not avoidance.
> 

I am not sure how this paragraph is relevant to our discussion. We can
both advocate increased learning across the board, a logical construct.
Nevertheless, it is impossible for all of us to know everything, and also
impossible for all of us to be intimately aware of the details of
processes like our food preparation or the construction of municipal
eruvin. At some point, everyone must rely on something or somebody.

YGB

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

>>> If one ingests chicken assumed to be kosher, but turns out to be treif
- one is at best shogeg - bacause there is not exemption of mis'asek  <<<

No, one is shogeg because it fits the category of shogeg and not the
category of mitasek, see RAshi KErisus 19b, top of the amud.

>>>If one carries where one assumed there was an eruv, but turns out it was
pasul - no teshuva is required.<<<

You are changing your tune.  You originally said we must be more careful
about what we eat because mitasek did not apply to chalavim, etc.  Now you
are basing yourself on a different din.  Eiruvin is a din derabbanan and
hence (I assume you are relying on the Nesivus for this?) there is no
tshuvah for SHOGEG, but cheilev is a din d'orayta.  I would skip the
Nesivus - If you carry with no eiruv you violate prob. at best a din
d'rabbanan (Rama's psak that we no longer have real rshut harabim) but
tarfus is a din d'oraysa.  I acknowledge the chomer of a d'oraysa over a
d'rabban - my point was in your original posting you misused the concept of
"misasek b'chalavim" to arrive at this simple conclusion.

>>>At some point, everyone must rely on something or somebody.<<<

Agreed.  Eid echad ne'eman b'isurim, and a posek can pasken an eiruvin
sheila.  To not rely on a psak without a justifiable (read: valid halachic)
reason is impunes the posek involved as well as the process of psak.
Complicated-yes, irresolvable - no.

-Chaim B.

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

> No, one is shogeg because it fits the category of shogeg and not the
> category of mitasek, see RAshi KErisus 19b, top of the amud.
>

This is splitting hairs - if there is no category of mis'asek, you are
shogeg by definition.
 
> >>>If one carries where one assumed there was an eruv, but turns out it was
> pasul - no teshuva is required.<<<
> 
> You are changing your tune.  You originally said we must be more careful
> about what we eat because mitasek did not apply to chalavim, etc.  Now you
> are basing yourself on a different din.  Eiruvin is a din derabbanan and
> hence (I assume you are relying on the Nesivus for this?) there is no

No, I am not relying on the Nesivos. I am assuming this to be true even by
a d'orysa - say, for example, you are in a known reshus harabbim, yet have
been assured by a competent authority that there are closed doors on
either end of it, rendering it, at least temporarily, a reshus hayachid,
and you carry on that assumption, then it turns out that the doors were
not closed (I am not getting into re'uyos le'hina'el). You are not a
shogeg - which would generate a korban - you are a mis'asek, and, as such,
exempt from all kappara. This is unique unto Shabbos because of the
principles of meleches machesheves, and applies even to the d'orysas of
Shabbos.

> tshuvah for SHOGEG, but cheilev is a din d'orayta.  I would skip the
> Nesivus - If you carry with no eiruv you violate prob. at best a din
> d'rabbanan (Rama's psak that we no longer have real rshut harabim) but
> tarfus is a din d'oraysa.  I acknowledge the chomer of a d'oraysa over a
> d'rabban - my point was in your original posting you misused the concept of
> "misasek b'chalavim" to arrive at this simple conclusion.
>

YGB 

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

>>> I am assuming this to be true even by a d'orysa - say, for example, you
are in a known reshus harabbim, yet have
          been assured by a competent authority that there are closed doors on
          either end of it, rendering it, at least temporarily, a reshus
          hayachid,
          and you carry on that assumption, then it turns out that the doors
          were
          not closed .You are not a shogeg - which would generate a korban - you
           are a mis'asek, and, as such, exempt from all kappara. This is unique
           unto Shabbos because of the principles of meleches machesheves, and
          applies even to the d'orysas of Shabbos.<<<

RAshi Keritut 19b (defining mitasek) - "Cheilev and Shuman are in front of
the person and he knows this is cheilev and that is shuman, and he intended
to eat shuman, and looked the other way and his hand grabbed the cheilev...
and it is not similar to shogeg where he intended to eat this piece [of
cheilev] but thought it was shuman".

Abaye and Rava in Keritut debate the ptur of mitasek on Shabbos-  you see a
fruit which is talush and one which is mechubar and know which is which;
you intend to cut (or pick up - machloket Abaye and Rava ) talush and your
hand slips and you cut the mechubar one.

Compare your case: the person knew exactly what they were doing - carrying
through the street on Shabbos - they were just in error as to the status of
the street.  Isn't that EXACTLY Rashi's case of shogeg: not knowing the
status of the meat - MISINFORMATION.  Mitasek is a mistaken ACTION - you
weren't aware of what you were doing.

(Yes, you won't be obligated to bring a korban in the Shabbos case you give
because it is not he'elem Shabbos or he'elem melacha, but that is a
technical ptur from the chiyuv of korban, it does not automatically
classify the act as mitasek.  The sugya in keritut defines mitasek).

-Chaim B.

If this was Purim I would perhaps believe it but you claims about Rabbi
Shimon are outrages. The Zohor was not "made" by one person but is a
collection of sayings of Sages from the time of the Misnah/Talmud. It is
not a "one man book" that was influenced by one man's problems.  Besides
the Rambam in (Forbidden intercourse: 21:18).is quite clear in his Aisur no
mention is made about the women suffering. 
Sorry but the view you present is "way out man" and is not recognisable
from learning the Gemorah Rambam and Halocha.

-----Original Message-----
Subject: The Biblical Roots of the Masturbation Prohibition--Complete
Summary

14. The Book Of Radiance
========================
It is public knowledge that a very great scholar, Rabbi Simeon the Son of
Yochai--the Holy Lamp--was subjected to live burial in a cave for over a
decade because of fear of the roman government and during that period he
and his son composed Radiance, the central book of mysticism. Because they
were isolated from all human companionship their main physical temptation
was masturbation and to avoid it they studied all day and coined various
terms denoting the seriousness of masturbation for them. In particular they
coined the witty pun-->>(temple) desecration of the holy convenant<< by
which they sought to compare masturbation  which involves the organ of
circumcision with which we have a >treaty<with God with the very severe
Biblical prohibition of desecrating the temple objects and offereings which
are also a >treaty<. 

The severity with which they regarded masturbation has filtered down to
various law books and tends to color masturbation discussion with a
severity that a rabbinic prohibition does not deserve. The proper 
procedure in discussions of law is to use the Biblical rabbinic  categories
mentioned above.<<

It is somewhat embarrssing when your own brother in law hasn't read your
book :-). But, no this is mis'asek - see "The Contemporary Eruv" p. 101,
Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa 17:25 and note 109, and Vol. 3 p. 29 and 1:29
and note 118. See also Igros Moshe EH Vol. 4 p. 18 for a nice description
- where one is aware of the halacha, not an omer muttar, but thinks one is
fulfilling the letter of that law - that is mis'asek.

YGB

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

> RAshi Keritut 19b (defining mitasek) - "Cheilev and Shuman are in front of
> the person and he knows this is cheilev and that is shuman, and he intended
> to eat shuman, and looked the other way and his hand grabbed the cheilev...
> and it is not similar to shogeg where he intended to eat this piece [of
> cheilev] but thought it was shuman".
> 
> Abaye and Rava in Keritut debate the ptur of mitasek on Shabbos-  you see a
> fruit which is talush and one which is mechubar and know which is which;
> you intend to cut (or pick up - machloket Abaye and Rava ) talush and your
> hand slips and you cut the mechubar one.
> 
> Compare your case: the person knew exactly what they were doing - carrying
> through the street on Shabbos - they were just in error as to the status of
> the street.  Isn't that EXACTLY Rashi's case of shogeg: not knowing the
> status of the meat - MISINFORMATION.  Mitasek is a mistaken ACTION - you
> weren't aware of what you were doing.
> 
> (Yes, you won't be obligated to bring a korban in the Shabbos case you give
> because it is not he'elem Shabbos or he'elem melacha, but that is a
> technical ptur from the chiyuv of korban, it does not automatically
> classify the act as mitasek.  The sugya in keritut defines mitasek).
> 
> -Chaim B.
> 
> 
> 

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

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]