Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 076

Sunday, June 25 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:55:37 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Malachim and Torah


RSC asked:
: As RDR so eloquently describes, the Torah instantiates itself both in the
: world of angels and in our world. Thus, my kasha on this Medrash is,
: what is Moshe's response to the malachim? True the malachim don't have
: the laws of theft but we down here don't relate to the laws of theft
: as they instantiate themselves l'ma'ala. The Malachim could have very
: simply responded, Yes, we do have the laws of theft however not the
: way you understand them. ...

Mal'achim are omedim. Even if they can coexist on the same plane as some
manifestation of Torah, even a more whole one, they can not utilize it.
MRAH wasn't so much saying that they can't steal or they can't honor
their parents, but that they can't shteig, they have no capacity to
increase in sheleimos. (Recast that line in deveiqus terms, works either
way.) And therefore what to'eles do the mitzvos have for them in any form?

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:27:14 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Fungible sechar


RDR wrote:
> Hazal say that God gave Mrs. Hanina ben Dosa the golden leg of her
> paradisical table to sell so she wouldn't be poor. When she realized that
> if she sold it her table in paradise would be wobbly she gave it back.
> Hazal also say that R. Shimon b. Yohai showed his students a valley full
> of golden coins and told them they could take as many as they wanted in
> exchange for their Olam haba.
> Both of these describe schar as what economists call "fungible": you can
> get your schar in Olam hazeh or in Olam haba but not both.

Back in 2002, in the thread "davening 'credits'"
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=D#DAVENING%20CREDITS>
we debated this point.

In v8n86 I tried to find lines of reasoning that explain how having one can
cause the loss of the other, but not due to exchange.

For example, RCV writes in Nefesh haChaim that the table had three legs
because the legs were Torah, Avodah and G"Ch. RCbD -- now remember, RCV
says this, not I -- was not up to the challenge of G"Ch from a position
of ashirus. And thus, Hashem taught them that they would be getting olam
hazeh through loss of olam haba. Buying is a metaphor for that kind of
exchange even in common usage. "He gave up his nightmare job, and what
did it buy him?" But that shouldn't be confused with an economic rather
than causal model of sechar.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:41:06 -0500
From: "Gershon Seif" <gershonseif@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Meseches makos question


Quick and easy question: Other than what's on the page or at the back
of the sefer, what are the main rishonim and achronim used when learning
meseches makos? (I never learned makos during my years in yeshiva.)


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:07:52 -0400
From: "Aryeh Englander" <iarwain1@earthlink.net>
Subject:
rishonim vs. Chazal


I am looking for sources and references on how the rishonim and acharonim
are allowed to argue on Chazal's interpretations of pesukim (when not for
halacha). If you know of any such sources, or if you have any thoughts
on the matter, please respond.

Aryeh L. Englander


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:32:46 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: rishonim vs. Chazal


On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 04:07:52PM -0400, Aryeh Englander wrote:
: I am looking for sources and references on how the rishonim and acharonim
: are allowed to argue on Chazal's interpretations of pesukim (when not for
: halacha). If you know of any such sources, or if you have any thoughts
: on the matter, please respond.

<Insert all old discussions about their being no halachic process for
aggadita unless there is a lema'aseh to it here.>

See RGS's draft essay <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/crossroads.htm>.
The significantly different version, same thesis, is at
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/modern_judaism/v024/24.3student.html>
for subscribers only.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:09:12 GMT
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Kohen ramifications of tooth implant


> Interesting halacha column in this week's Yated by Rabbi Kaganoff
> discusses the presence of fragments of cadaver bone and muscle in offices
> of dentists, dental surgeons and podiatrists. While a frum dentist may
> receive a heter to use the bone fragment to produce a better dental
> implant, Rabbi Kaganoff recommends that the individual patient ask his
> own Rov. Even for a non-Kohen, there are various opinions regarding
> using cadaver products in non-life-threatening situation.

When the use of corneas from a cadaver was introduced, I asked my father
z"l about a kohen's using it. He said as a s'vara that there might
possibly be no issur because once implanted, the cornea was now alive.

EMT 


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:33:42 -0400
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Meseches makos question


Gershon Seif wrote:
> Quick and easy question: Other than what's on the page or at the back
> of the sefer, what are the main rishonim and achronim used when learning
> meseches makos? (I never learned makos during my years in yeshiva.)

Ritva and Meiri.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:54:18 -0400
From: Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@juno.com>
Subject:
Hair-Bleaching for Men


Speaking of tattoos, facepaint and henna...

I'm looking for sources on men and bleaching hair. I was told once that
there's a halakhic distinction between hair dye, which adds color and is
assur mishum beged isha, and bleach, which removes color, and is mutar.
Are there any ratifying or contradictory pesaqim out there that can
be referenced?

 -Stephen (Steg) Belsky


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:00:20
From: "Dr. Josh Backon" <backon@vms.huji.ac.il>
Subject:
Re: Fully Cooked


R. Gershon Dubin asked:
>I'm looking for mar'eh mekomos on what point or range is considered fully
>cooked as far as hilchos Shabbos is concerned. Is it only one point,
>or does it depend; i.e. some people would consider a "rare" steak, raw,
>while others would consider a "well-done" steak overcooked.

The definition of "maachal ben drosai":

Rashi (on gemara in Shabbat 20a d"h ben drosai): 1/3

Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 9:5: 50% (half)

Mechaber (OC 254:2) paskins like the Rambam (50%) but see the Be'er
Heiteiv from a Shach in YD 113 s"k 11 that actually it is 1/3 but only
because of a chumra they went to 50%

Mishna Brura 253 s"k 38: in shaat ha'dchak we can be lenient that the
shi'ur is 1/3

The Aruch haShulchan OC 254 as usual gives the shitot Rishonim and gives
shiurim for kugels etc (#14) [e.g. has to have a crust]. He also discusses
the parameters of "re'u'im l'achila" (which he equates to ma'achal ben
drosai) [see 254 # 6) and "mishnai tzdadim" (#7) (which he also equate
with 50% cooked).

KT
Josh


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:21:55 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Fully Cooked


On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:00:20PM +0000, Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
:> I'm looking for mar'eh mekomos on what point or range is considered fully
:> cooked as far as hilchos Shabbos is concerned. Is it only one point,
:> or does it depend; i.e. some people would consider a "rare" steak, raw,
:> while others would consider a "well-done" steak overcooked.

: The definition of "maachal ben drosai":...

... except that RGD asked whether kol tsorcho is subjective, according to
most people, or defined some other way? Not about kemaachal ben drusa'i
(KBD).

Gut Voch!
-mi


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:45:05 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject:
Not washing for meal on Shabbos?


I just had a guest for Shabbos who is from Turkish -Mexican ancestry. He
says they have a minhag that only the head of the household washes for
the meal on Shabbos - but they all eat bread. He says it is not just
his family but they knows others from Mexican background who also have
this minhag.

Has anyonee heard of such a practice and what the basis is?

Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:43:41 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Meseches makos question


On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:41:06 -0500 "Gershon Seif" <gershonseif@yahoo.com>
writes:
> Quick and easy question: Other than what's on the page or at the back
> of the sefer, what are the main rishonim and achronim used when learning
> meseches makos? (I never learned makos during my years in yeshiva.)

Write to www.dafyomi.co.il;  they have introduction pages to each
maseches with excellent summaries of the rishonim and acharonim on each.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[... and then report back to us, please. -mi]


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:53:08 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Fully Cooked


On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:00:20 "Dr. Josh Backon" <backon@vms.huji.ac.il>
writes:
> >I'm looking for mar'eh mekomos on what point or range is considered fully
> >cooked as far as hilchos Shabbos is concerned....

> The definition of "maachal ben drosai":
> Rashi (on gemara in Shabbat 20a d"h ben drosai): 1/3
> Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 9:5: 50% (half)
...

Not the question.  I asked what is fully cooked, or, rephrased, what is
it 33% or 50% OF?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:13:24
From: "Dr. Josh Backon" <backon@vms.huji.ac.il>
Subject:
Re: Fully Cooked


At 12:53 AM 6/25/2006 -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>Not the question.  I asked what is fully cooked, or, rephrased, what is
>it 33% or 50% OF?

See the Aruch Hashulchan I quoted. 

KT
Josh


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:37:43 -0400
From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
Subject:
RE: Fully Cooked


From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
>I'm looking for mar'eh mekomos on what point or range is considered fully
>cooked as far as hilchos Shabbos is concerned. Is it only one point,
>or does it depend; i.e. some people would consider a "rare" steak, raw,
>while others would consider a "well-done" steak overcooked.

>Sources, anyone?

There are four (major) points on the spectrum.
    1. Totally raw.
    2. Mechul ben Dirasuya -- cooked halfway (or a third).
    3. Fully cooked, beneficial.
    4. Fully cooked, detrimental.

The first is absolute. The third and fourth are dependent on the
individual, to the extent that he can change his mind from week to week
based on the circumstances, guests etc. (M.A. 253, 1 or 2; Mishna Berura
SK 8 with Shar HaTziyon; Shulchan Shlomo right in the beginning of 253).
The second point would appear to be dependent as well, since the end
(points 3 and 4) is up to each individual. In any case there is a diyun
in the poskim how to calculate the second point (is it a fraction of
the cooking "time", or is it a fraction of the food's "completeness"
with no inherent connection to the actual time).

KT,
MSS  


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:58:07 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Kohen ramifications of tooth implant


Sarah Green writes:
> Interesting halacha column in this week's Yated by Rabbi  Kaganoff
> discusses the presence of fragments of cadaver bone and muscle in  offices
> of dentists, dental surgeons and podiatrists.

I didn't read R' Kaganoff's article in Yated so perhaps he addresses
these questions there, but can you tell me -- why is this a problem?
Do non-Jewish bones convey tumah? I thought not -- hence in chu'l
at least, where the majority of bones would not come from Jews, this
should not be a problem. As for taking bones from Jewish cadavers
for non-life-threatening purposes -- would this not be assur?

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


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:31:02 +0300
From: "Simon Montagu" <simon.montagu@gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Not washing for meal on Shabbos?


On 6/24/06, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> I just had a guest for Shabbos who is from Turkish -Mexican ancestry. He
> says they have a minhag that only the head of the household washes for
> the meal on Shabbos - but they all eat bread. He says it is not just
> his family but they knows others from Mexican background who also have
> this minhag.
> Has anyonee heard of such a practice and what the basis is?

This is just a guess, but perhaps if they are from a converso background
and were preserving Jewish customs in secret, there would have been more
risk of discovery if the whole family got up and washed.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:15:59 -0400
From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
Subject:
Re: face painting


> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 07:18:57AM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> : Gemara in Makkos 21a. "...Assur lo l'adam sheyitein eifer maqleh al
> : gabbei makkaso mipnei sheniris kikhsoves qa'aqa..." Rashi explains
> : that the prohibition is specific to Eifer Maqleh, because it stays for
> : a while, as opposed to other substances that are weaker in nature...

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> My understanding is that EM is permanent, and, once the wound heals,
> ends up under the skin. The use of ash in this way, often producting dark
> and raised scarring, is common to a number of cultures. It's unlike a
> KQ in two ways:
> 1- The intent is refu'ah, not kesivah, and
> 2- The person isn't wounding himself in order to put it under the skin
> -- the skin is already open.

EM is not discussed in the context of a D'Oraysa, the language is Assur 
Litein, vs. Hanosein EM Hayyav, and the ta'am for EM is mipnei Shenireis 
Kikhsoves qa'aqa, not KQ itself. The question was whether it was 
Rabbinnic, and the Sugya in Makkos concludes that EM is not Assur, 
peirush, afilu mid'rabanan. If the writing were permanent the issues 
would be d'oraysa. rashi in Makkos highlights that EM is specifically 
not permanent by stating that it stays "z'man rav" vs. l'olam, and he 
contrasts it with other materials that would not stay long term, i.e. 
dust. The sugya appears to be discussing whether Hazal prohibited 
qa'aqa-esque tattoos, those who look alike, but aren't the real deal.

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> RJF's sources support both.

> Rama YD 180:4 says that tattooing a slave is patur aval assur
> lechatkhilah. Which would seem to place significance on reason --
> it's less evil to "brand" your property. Intent.

Rama is arguing with mehaber, who seems to have no issue, even
l'khatkhila. Rama cites no source for why it should be assur l'khathila
, and Biur haGra points out Tosfos in Gitin 20b as a source. The Gra
understood Tosfos in Gittin to understand the sugya in Makkos that Rav
Ashi's reason of makkoso mokhiah alav was specific to medical purpose,
but in the absence of medical need there is an Issur D'rabanan to place
EM on one's skin. The GRA concludes, that branding a slave should be no
worse than non-medical EM, and that if there is a rabbinic prohibition
on simulating a tattoo, Kol Shekein on an actual tattoo, so that would
be the Rama's source for prohibiting this practice, l'khatkhila.

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Tosafos states #2 in his rational for EM. #1. Even so, I would understand
> this to mean that, like hilkhos shabbos de'oraisa, we should be looking
> at tzerikhah vs. einah tzerikhah legufah.

Which Tosfos cites a reason at all? Tosfos in Makkos paskens like Rav 
Ashi, no rason supplied, Tosfos in Gitin just quotes the Shitah of Rav 
Ada bar Ahavah in Makkos, that an Issur D'rabanan exists with EM, mipnei 
shenireh...

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 12:01:02AM +0200, RELPhM wrote:
> : Also, as far as I know, the purpose plays a role. Beautification isn't as
> : forbidden a purpose as is evoude zore, is it? The question is discussed
> : in connexion with permanent make-up.

> Given my "even so" right before this quote, I would think that it's not
> relevent what kind of non-kesivah is the intent. Rather, it's whether
> the definition of letzorekh is only kesivah or on tzovei'ah too.

> AZ would be assur without even getting into our question. The rishonim
> listed who explicitly make the din one of AZ, remind me of one of the
> discussions in Yevamos of how many issurim a person can violate at once.

> In any case, the whole thing seems to start blurring the line of pasqening
> from taamei hamitzvos. I guess that's a mandatory side effect of saying
> the act must be letzorekh to be assur.

> Besides, while the Rambam says that KQ and peiyos harosh are derivatives
> of AZ, RSRH atributes them to one not being their own property and the
> separation between the human forebrain from the lower levels of the
> psyche, respectively. His shitah on KQ matches the usual reasons for
> getting a tattoo, at least in our society.

> Would RSRH be mechadeish a chiluq with the Rambam if he believed the
> outcome has a nafqa mina lehalakhah?

> On a totally different tack, the question I raised before: Clearly
> Sephardi pisqa is that henna, which that stays on "from 2 weeks to
> several months [!] depending on the quality of the paste" is muttar.

Not surprising. As the only Issur could be d'rabanan, and the Gemara
concludes that EM is permitted. The only Hiluq we find that suggests that
it is permitted exclusively in medical situations, is Tosfos in Gitin,
and that opinion is ignored in Halakha, with the exception of the Rama's
psak according to the Gra. There is no source in Sefaradic posqim for
such an issur. Furthermore, there is nary a source in Ashkenazic posqim,
as the Tosfos in Gitin mentioned above, may actually conflict the Tosfos
in makkos, who clealy states that the Halakah is like Rav Ashi that EM is
muttar, and does not supply a Hiluq for intent of application of EM. So
why is Tosfos is Gitin more authoritative that the one in Makkos?

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Ashkenazim appear to have a shorter threashold. But does anyone know
> of a pesaq that brings the time down to under a week? Because I didn't,
> and because rub-on tattoos seem to be common usage, I'm presuming that
> if there is one, it's not popular.

If the source is EM, than the guideline is that of Rashi's "Zeman Rav,"
and that is pretty ambiguous.

Jacob Farkas


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:27:44 -0400
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Subject:
Different Hashkofos


Tue, 14 Feb 2006, R. Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> (Subject:
Re: Creation & allegory) wrote:
> I recently had a discussion with a rosh yeshiva who criticized my
> sefer Daas Torah. He asserted that real Jews don't need to research
> seforim and study the range of views to understand hashkofa. A person
> who grows up with a strong mesora just knows the true point of view.

I wonder how one cannot be impressed by Rabbi Eidensohn's magnificent
work, if only in the aspect of discovering the original mekoros for
the hashkofos one grew up with. One needs only to lurk Avodah, or have
personal discussions with others from other yeshivos or communities,
to become aware that some strong hashkofos one person grew up with may
well be at odds with some strong hashkofos another has grown up with.
(I experienced such "culture shock" when I moved from the Mountaindale
Yeshiva community [under Rav Yehuda Davis, ztvk'l] to the Staten
Island Yeshiva community [under the influence of Rav Moshe Feinstein,
ztvk'l.] There, I even became aware of differing hashkofos within
the hanhalla -- for instance regarding if/when to cease full-time
learning]. And I continue to be shocked on Avodah.)

This past Shabbos I again looked through Daas Torah and noticed
(pp. 37-39) some scattered passages where RDE untypically provides his
own insights about the foundations of "Jewish Thinking." One gets the
impression that these were originally meant as a formal introduction to
the book. Have these paragraphs ever been posted?

Zvi Lampel


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 >