Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 090

Tuesday, January 17 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:52:53 -0000
From: joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com

>>what melacha would one be doing when one does metzitza? for example,
>> it's assur for a parent to kiss a cut their child gets? (I would guess
>> many parents have done this over the years on shabbos).

> I recall that the Mishnah Berurah clearly forbids sucking blood from
> bleeding gums on Shabbos (at the end of, I think, siman 329). I assume
> that the melocho is m'farek.

this would seem to be of relevance.

I now have sefer in front of me. The correct reference is Mishnah
Berurah, s.k. 147 to siman 328. He states that that one is chayav for
sucking blood from between one's teeth. He also mentions that it is
an Av Melacha to place a cloth on a wound which absorbs blood. This is
certainly relevant to the question of MBP.

Kol tuv

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:51:26 -0500
From: Yitzchok Levine <llevine@stevens.edu>
RSRH and Transmigration

The selection below is from "new" Hirsch Chumash, page 891. It is part
of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 50, 2.

Am I misreading it when I say that it implies that RSRH did not subscribe
to the idea of the transmigration of souls, and felt that it was a
non-Jewish concept.

Here we have an interesting contrast between the Egyptian view - as
expressed in embalmment - and the Jewish view. Such contrasts, whenever
they occur, should be analyzed, and should be stressed especially in
our confrontation with those who deny the Divine source of the Torah,
who regard "the work of Moses" as merely the product of "his genius'
which "drew upon the wisdom of the priests of Egypt."

How striking is the contrast that is revealed here! The Egyptian would
embalm the body, so that its individuality should endure. However,
the soul, he thought, did not remain in its personal individuality,
but wandered from body to body - even to animal bodies - in manifold
metamorphoses. The Jew believes that the soul endures forever, whereas
the body wanders. Once the soul has been gathered unto the souls of its
people, the body has nothing more to do with the individual. Rather,
it is a mitzvah to bring the body as soon as possible into close contact
with the decomposing earth (see Sanhedrin 46b). The body returns to dust,
and goes through all the transformations of earthly matter. The Egyptian
believed in the transmigration of the soul, and tried to protect the
body from any possibility of change. The Jew believes in the soul's
eternal personal existence, and surrenders the body to earthly change.

There is also the following from R. Saadia Goan (882-942) in his Beliefs
and Opinions (Emunos VeDeyos), who writes,

"Yet I must say that I have found certain people, who call themselves
Jews, professing the doctrine of metempsychosis, which is designated
by them as the theory of the "transmigration" of souls. What they
mean thereby is that the spirit of Reuben is transferred to Shimon and
afterwards to Levi and after that to Judah. Many of them would even go
so far as to assert that the spirit of a human being might enter into
the body of a beast or that of a beast into the body of a human being,
and other such nonsense and stupidities." (Treatise VI , Chapter VIII)

Did RSRH follow R. Saadia Goan? Can anyone point out any other writing
of RSRH dealing with this concept?

Yitzchok Levine

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:33:22 -0500
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
Calling Avraham - Avram

>> //Avi
>> Avram Sacks"

> Isn't there some gemara about not calling Avraham 'Avram'??
> Or does that only refer to Avraham Avinu?
> Just wondering..as over the years I have known a few Avrams.

See Brachot 13a -Seems only Avraham and no note to a cite in S"A
or Rambam. There are other gemoras IIRC that discuss nickname usage
in general.

Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:52:04 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Calling Avraham - Avram

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:33:22AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: See Brachot 13a -Seems only Avraham and no note to a cite in S"A
: or Rambam. There are other gemoras IIRC that discuss nickname usage
: in general.

See Bereishis 17:5: "velo yiqqarei od es shimkha 'Avram', vehayah shimkha
'Avraham'..." Seems pashut it's talking about the person, not the name in


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:55:03 -0500
From: "Rabbi Daniel Yolkut" <haleviy@aol.com>
Middah ke-neged Middah

Does anyone have access to Aspaklaria (the machshava encyclopedia) who
would be able to lookup for me and perhaps scan/fax the material Middah
keneged Middah? Additionally, anyone have recommendations of discussion
of this concept in Sifrei Machshava?

Daniel Yolkut

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:55:13 EST
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Re:Tefilas Haderech

> Bottom line, I would like to know what people's minhag is when they
> commute to work, go to a simcha, etc. do they say tefials haderech
> or not?

I don't say Tefilas Haderech when I commute into NYC or to a simcha from
our neigborhood (KGH)-even if the simcha entails driving thru the rough
sections of Brooklyn to get to a hall in Crown Heights. When we travelled
out of the city limits , we always said it despite the fact that auto
travel is quite safe. Ditto on air travel.

Steve Brizel

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:04:53 -0500
From: Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@juno.com>
Tefilas Haderech nowadays

On Sunday, January 15, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> Bottom line, I would like to know what people's minhag is when they
> commute to work, go to a simcha, etc. do they say tefials haderech or 
> not?

Based on the svaras you mentioned, and similar discussions about the
issue, including the issue of commuting into NYC from a suburb an hour
or more away, I started saying Tefillas Haderekh only when traveling
outside of a metropolitan area.

So a trip in traffic, however long it'd take, between Syosset, LI,
through Elizabeth, NJ and Monsey, NY to White Plains, NY, would not have
me say Tefillas Haderekh since it's just one big loop through a single
metropolitan area.

For traveling from NYC to Philadelphia, Scranton, or Albany, though, I
would. I generally judge whether I've left the metropolitan area by when
I pass the first major rest stop on the highway. This is a lot easier
on interstates; on minor state highways where there's a string of little
towns all along it I find it a bit harder to judge the proper distance.

In Israel, though, I said Tefillas Haderekh whenever getting on the
highway. Speaking of which, I remember reading about a religious poet
in Gush Etzion who wrote a poem called something like _Tefillat Haderekh
for the Tunnel Road_, and that supposedly some people from the Gush say
that instead of or in addition to the standard Tefillat Haderekh when
commuting in to Yerushalayim through the Tunnel Road. But I've never
been able to find a copy of it... does anyone know where I could find it?

-Stephen (Steg) Belsky
  "only the extremes are logical; but they are absurd."
      ~ samuel butler

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:57:23 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Timtum halev

Does anyone have a mekor for the idea that timtum halev is caused only
by devarim teme'im such as shekatzim uremasim or behemos teme'ios and
not by such things as nevela uterefa?


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:03:11 -0500
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Re: Timtum halev

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Does anyone have a mekor for the idea that timtum halev is caused only
> by devarim teme'im such as shekatzim uremasim or behemos teme'ios and
> not by such things as nevela uterefa?

You might be able to understand the Zohar at the end of Parshas Shemini
that way.

David Riceman

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:13:05 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Re: Timtum halev

"David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> You might be able to understand the Zohar at the end of Parshas Shemini
> that way.

Can you give me some detail?


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:51:50 -0500
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
RE: Timtum halev

On January 16, 2006, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Does anyone have a mekor for the idea that timtum halev is caused only
> by devarim teme'im such as shekatzim uremasim or behemos teme'ios and
> not by such things as nevela uterefa?

Who says this is true? Although the Gemara does illustrate the idea of
timtum halev by quoting a pasuk in regards to sheratzim, I don't believe
TH is exclusive to sheratzim. The Gemara says "aveira mitamtemes", not
"sheratzim mitamtimim". If anything TH would at least apply equally
to *all* machalim assurim if not to all aveiros (see Mesilas Yesharim
Perek 13).

Simcha Coffer

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:50:30 +0000
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
RE: citations & g'neivas da'as

Quoting S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>:
> On January 15, 2005, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> But every physical action he did was not entirely permissible. He sent a
>> thigh which was cut but the gid hanashe was not removed. That is assur.

> Really? What if he would have sent a note along with the present explaining
> that there was still a gid hanasheh attached? Would it still be assur?

Then his present would have been made up of two aspects, a deceptive thigh
and a note, and that note would have operated to cancel out the deceptive
nature of the thigh. A present of deceptive thigh plus note explaining
the deception is not the same present as a deceptive thigh sans note.
The total is not deceptive, even if one of the individual components
taken by itself might otherwise have been. That seems clear from the
case the gemora brings slightly later about opening a barrel of wine,
where if the guest is informed that the remaining wine is already sold
there is no genavas daas.

BTW, while we are having this discussion based on your reading of
the gemora, which is that the prohibition in the gemora in relation
to geneivas daas and the nochri is derived from a situation where
a present is sent to a goy with a cut thigh (which seems consistent
with the explanation of Rashi there on 94a) we should probably note
for completeness that the braisa over the page seems to contradict the
gemora on 94a, stating that one may send a goy a thigh whether cut or
not, and Tosphos (d'H amar) appears to be reconciling that gemora by
saying genevas daas only applies where there is a sale, not a present,
and Rabbanu Tam appears to say that this whole case is not geneivas daas,
but it would seem only to be geneivas daas when there is an explicit
statement that the meat is kosher. And Rashi seems to distinguish the two
based on whether it is received by the goy publically versus privately
(d'H Gezeira on 94b), but while I understand that in relation to the
first reason of the gemora not to send, namely that a Jew will then buy
from the goy, I am not sure I understand how Rashi then deals with the
genavas daas aspect, especially given his comment on the previous page.

Getting back to the question of objective versus subjective, however,
the gemora later discusses the whole question of the person deceiving
themselves and jumping to conclusions, and it would seem there that there
is no genevas daas in such a circumstance. In fact one of the later cases
in the gemora is the flip side of case being discussed, ie we announce
that there is meat for goyim in the marketplace. We do not announce that
there is treif meat for goyim in the marketplace, as that would put the
goyim off buying. And the gemora asks, is this not deceptive, and the
response appears to be, no they are deceiving themselves. Now in this
case, there is actually something of an intention to deceive, we want
them to deceive themselves (subjective), otherwise we would never sell
the meat. However, the reason it would seem not to be geneivas daas is
because any reasonable goy, if they thought this through, would realise
that the meat is being advertised as only being sold off specifically to
goyim for a reason - as there is clearly no special issue in relation
to this goy going on here (ie objective observer would work out not to
jump to the wrong conclusion).

Hence it seems to me that the key question is is the situation or object
intrinsically deceptive.

>> It would have been entirely permissable to send a thigh that was not cut
>> (as a goy can eat a gid hanashe and he can benefit from it). It would
>> have been entirely permissible to send a cut thigh which had the gid
>> hanashe removed, as that would not have been intrinsically deceptive.

> But the reason it was not permitted is because of gineyvas daas and thus
> your reasoning is circular. You see, my point is that since every action he
> performed is not *intrinsically* assur,

Again this is where I think we disagree. If the action of sending a
present (or making a sale depending on the prohibition) can be defined
by an independent observer as deceptive why is it not an action that is
intrinsically assur? It seems to me you do indeed need to look at the
subject matter in the round, and there may be other ways of neutering
the deceptive nature of the subject matter (what if you sewed the cut up
so that it was undetectable, that too would render the thigh no longer
deceptive). But something that is of its nature deceptive is assur,
whether or not you intended or had the sechiel to realise that it was
likely he would be deceived.

> the gineyvas daas can only make it
> assur if he intended to be goneiv his daas. For example, if he sent a letter
> along with the thigh stating that the gid hanasheh was still attached, than
> the action would be permissible. Thus, even the action described in the
> Gemara per-se is not intrinsically assur. It is the misleading quality about
> that action that is assur. The action in the Gemara is just an example of
> misleading someone, that's it. 

How do you get this from the gemora? Part of the reason why the example
would seem to be such a good example would seem to be precisely how
clear its objective quality is (the problem the rishonim have with it
is that it seems to contradict was it said on the next daf).

> A
> thigh with a gid hanasheh cannot constitute an "intrinsically deceptive"
> item. It is only the subjective misuse of the thigh that turns it into a
> chafetz shel issur. According to you, every thigh should intrinsically be
> considered a chafetz shel issur regardless of whether it has a gid or not
> because I can whack someone over the head with it. 

No more than cheese and meat constitute chafetzim of issur because they
can be cooked together. Something has to be done to them. In this case
sent or sold or whatever the prohibition is. Perhaps if I used the term
deceptive product made up of non deceptive components that would help.

> The teretz is it is not
> intrinsically deceptive, like bassar bi'chalav; rather my subjective
> intention turns it into a utensil that was used to mislead.  

> BTY, if, according to you, this thigh now becomes a chafetz of issur, then
> would it be mutar for the goy to give it to a Jew as a present? According to
> you the Jew shouldn't be able to accept it because it now adopts the din of
> a cheftza shel issur due to the goy being deceived.

No, a Jew certainly can't accept it. And if there was any danger that he
would, then you have even bigger problems. See what is going on here.
Goy X is convinced he has a kosher piece of meat with the gid hanashe
removed (he has been misled into thinking that by the fact that it
is cut). So off he goes and tells Jew Y "here is some kosher meat as a
present for you, and you don't need to worry that it is not kosher, as it
was sent to me by Jew Z" or alternatively Jew Y was there when the piece
arrived and was opened. Are you really suggesting there is no problem
with this meat being passed on to a Jew in this fashion? When you might
have a Jew eating treif meat because the meat is intrinsically deceptive?

Luckily I believe the gemora deals with this problem - the first reason
given by the gemora why one cannot send such a thigh is precisely
because it might ultimately end up in the hands of a Jew. The only
circumstance where this second reason (deceptiveness) might come into
play is either where Jews never take meat from goyim, or where they
announce in the marketplace that there was meat for goyim today, so the
Jew is already on notice that there is treif meat around and would not
take meat from a goy on that day, so there is no passing from goy to
Jew in this manner. Note that the gemora explicitly says there that we
can tell the difference between meat cut by a Jew and by a goy which is
why the nature of a Jewish cut is so problematic.

> However, if lets say the sender, for instance,
> thought he was sending a thigh without the gid hanasheh, and if it ever
> became known to him that it had a gid hanasheh he would immediately inform
> the receiver, then he is not oiver gineyvas daas at all, even bishogeg. 

This is a mistake of fact - the Jew did not know what he was really
sending (or selling). I don't see any difference in this case to if a
Jew eats (or sends another Jew) a piece of meat which he truly believes
is kosher, but is in fact treif. That is a mistake of fact. If he knew
the true situation he would move to rectify it (stop eating, tell the
other Jew). That to my mind is the classic definition of shogeg.

In a previous email you wrote:
>That's why the Rambam puts it in hilchos Deos, which are
>halachos that apply to one's character, not in hilchos gineyva

I would note however that the Shulchan Aruch puts it in Choshen
Mishpat: Hilchos ona'ah v'mechach taus under the heading: siman 228:
Asur l'ha'onos bdvarim, lganov daas habrios ul'ramos bmecach umemkar.
The relevant si'if is 6 "assur lramos benei adam b'mechach u'memkar or
lignov daasum k'gon im yesh mum bemechacho tzarich l'hodoyo l'lokeach,
af im hu akum lo yimkar lo basar neveila b'chezkas schuta, v'ain l'gnov
daas ahbrios b'dvarim .. "

Do you hold that all of these need intention for a person to violate them?

Chana Luntz

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:30:28 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: Calling Avraham - Avram

> Isn't there some gemara about not calling Avraham 'Avram'??
> Or does that only refer to Avraham Avinu?

In a message dated 1/16/06 12:03:48 pm EST, JRich@Segalco.com writes:
> See Brachot 13a -Seems only Avraham and no note to a cite in S"A
> or Rambam.

It's brought in Mogein Avraham O"C 156.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:57:02 +0200
From: Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com>
Tefilas Haderech nowadays

1. Where in the Halichos Shlomo does the Rosh Yeshiva RSZA zt"l write
about this?

2. I asked R' Dovid Morgenstern shlita, and he said that the Rov (R'
Elyashiv shlita) says TH at Mevaseret.

3. This morning I drove R' L Heineman shlita from Bayit Vegan to Bnai
Brak & back, and he said TH at the Moza bend.

 - Danny

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:21:15 -0600
From: Ken Bloom <kbloom@gmail.com>
Re: Tefilas Haderech nowadays

ROY's position on the matter has been discussed previously at
and <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n430.shtml#10>

It was stated there:
> Yalkut Yosef Vol 3, Siman Resh-Yud-Tet, #20:
> One who travels in an airplane from city to city, and the duration of
> the flight is 72 minutes or longer, says the berachah, even if the 
> ground is below him. A flight less than 72 minutes, do not say it.And
> this also applies to one who travels in a speeding car, that the
> trip is less than 72 minutes, even if it would take that long in a
> bus. A round trip flight, where the total flying time is 72 min or
> more, say the berachah.

The whole siman in Yalkut Yosef discusses birkat hagomel and tefillat
haderech. In short, ROY rules that one should say tefillat haderech and
birkat hagomel on any trip outside of city limits that is longer than 72
minutes ("im yesh b'nisiyato k'shiur parsah, sh'hu sha'ah v'chomesh").
Note that sefaradim are noheg to say birkat hagomel on any trip that
requires tefillat haderech.

 -Ken Bloom

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:31:06 +0200
From: Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com>
Bal tashchis and burning Chometz

Continuing a discussion that started on Areivim.

There seems to be a feeling that it's better to sell or give away chometz
rather than burn it, so as to prevent Bal Tashchis.

However, neither in the MB nor in the OH (siman 448) do I see any hint
of minimising the amount of chometz being burnt.

Au contraire, it seems that the mitzva is to burn all chometz in one's
possesion. I couldn't even find the siman that talks about Mechiras
Chometz. I assume it's hidden in a siman with a different title.

Can somebody shed some light on this?

 - Danny

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:38:52 -0500
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
RE: Calling Avraham - Avram

> Isn't there some gemara about not calling Avraham 'Avram'??
> Or does that only refer to Avraham Avinu?

In a message dated 1/16/06 12:03:48 pm EST, JRich@Segalco.com writes:
> See Brachot 13a -Seems only Avraham and no note to a cite in S"A or 
> Rambam.

[R' Yitzchok Zirkind:]
> It's brought in Mogein Avraham O"C 156.

Yes but I think that is the only major authority who brings it down;
perhaps due to ein lmeidin mkodem matan torah (B"N I'll look into this
some more)

Joel Rich

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 >