Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 219

Wed, 02 Nov 2011

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:43:48 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and


R' MB:
REMT and RSM also noted here a while back that originally people sat
when the chasan and kallah came in. Admittedly, we can view that as a
transition period, not long enough to define a minhag. I don't know.

However, li nir'eh that now that it's de rigeur, and people associated it
with "chasan domeh lemelekh", refraining from standing makes a statement,
not joining in on the hanhagah. It seems to be a trivial way to contribute
to simchas chasan vekallah. So why not?
---------------


heard (and I think I posted it last time this came up), is that we stand
before people who are doing a mitzvah. The chosson and kallah are coming to
do the mitzvos (to link to a recent thread) of Ki Yikach Ish Ishah and
Piryah V'rivyah, so we stand in their honor.

KT,
MYG

P.S. The source for standing up before people who are doing a mitzvah slips
my mind; however, I think it's pretty much mefurash somewhere. Does anyone
remember?




Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:08:54 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New


On 1/11/2011 2:37 PM, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
> Isn't there another downside (assuming full consent, no coercion
> etc. which is an assumption that very well might not be justified); i.e.,
> that rich people whose condition is not as serious as that of poor people
> will live and the poor people will die? Take this example: doctors
> say rich person should live at least three more years with dialysis;
> poor person will die within a month. Is it just/moral/halachically
> permissible (three possibly differing/conflicting standards) for the
> rich person to get the transplant and the poor person to die, when,
> if the poor person got the transplant, both of them might have lived
> (albeit the rich person having to undergo additional dialysis)?

Why shouldn't a rich person have better things than a poor one?  It's his
money paying for it, so it's just and proper that he should have the best.
Rich people's children have better and more nutritious food than poor
people's, and therefore a better chance of survival.  Rebbi ate radish
and lettuce, while the poor of his city presumably got what the communal
kuppah distributed - mainly bread all week, with something to make it go
down, and some fish and meat for shabbos.  Rich people have good warm
clothes, warm and insulated houses, travel in comfort, etc., while poor
people have to do without those things.  So why should medical care be
different?   When you get right down to it, what's the point of money
if it can't save your life when you need it?  The rich should give
tzedakah as well, so that the poor can also get, but they're not going
to get the same as the rich, and they shouldn't expect it.

Still, it seems to me that it would be nice if a rich person who buys a
kidney shows his gratitude to Hashem by sponsoring another one for a
poor person.



On 1/11/2011 4:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But whichever rules of triage are nog'im lemaaseh, may one buy an organ
> in order to facilitate a violation of the rules of triage?

I don't understand how there can be a hava amina that one may not.  The
rules at the end of Horiyos are for a communal kuppah, not for a yachid
helping his relatives and friends, let alone himself.  As for himself,
the pasuk says "kol asher la'ish yiten be`ad nafsho".

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:51:14 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New


On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:08:54PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 1/11/2011 4:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> But whichever rules of triage are nog'im lemaaseh, may one buy an organ
>> in order to facilitate a violation of the rules of triage?

> I don't understand how there can be a hava amina that one may not.  The
> rules at the end of Horiyos are for a communal kuppah, not for a yachid
> helping his relatives and friends, let alone himself...

So a yachid may /buy/ organs. But we were speaking of brokering, not the
consumer. if some avaryan or not bar chiyuva were Maybe it's permissable
to be the consumer of an avaryan or someone who isn't a bar chiyuva.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Isaac Balbin <Isaac.Bal...@rmit.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:52:33 +1100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and


> 
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:20:20PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 1/11/2011 6:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> Why is it that everyone stands for the chasan and kallah at a wedding,
>>> but so few of us have a minhag to stand for Lekha Dodi? There we have
>>> a kalah, and in some nusachos, she is identified with "Shabbas Malkesa".
> 
>> Surely everyone stands at least for the last verse, where she's welcomed
>> in.
> 
> But if you stand for a regular kallah, why not for an idiomatic kallah
> who is explicitly called a malkesa? She is the same kalah/malkesah in
> the first verse as when we explicitly say do on the first.


The Rav, RYBS used to go towards the door for Boi VeShalom, according to R' Schachter.

I'd suggest this issue is about whether the Rambam's dinim on Melech only referred to
a Bosor V'Dom. Perhaps that's why some sit for Shalom Aleichem and other stand.
Avraham stood and ran.


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 21:07:20 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New


On 1/11/2011 4:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But whichever rules of triage are nog'im lemaaseh, may one buy an organ
> in order to facilitate a violation of the rules of triage?

R' ZS:
I don't understand how there can be a hava amina that one may not.  The
rules at the end of Horiyos are for a communal kuppah, not for a yachid
helping his relatives and friends, let alone himself.  As for himself,
the pasuk says "kol asher la'ish yiten be`ad nafsho".
---------------



KT,
MYG




Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:59:01 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] The Pursuit of Truth: Thoughts on Parashat Lekh


R' YL:
By Rabbi Marc D. Angel 

Some years ago, I had a conversation with a Hassidic Jew who assured me that
his Rebbe never committed any sins. He stated with certainty that his Rebbe
was endowed with a grand and holy soul, far superior to the soul of any
other people.

When I pointed out to him that even Moses committed sins, he flatly denied
that this was so. I reminded him that the Torah itself reports Moses's
shortcomings. He said: You do not understand the Torah! It is impossible
that Moses could have done anything wrong. He was perfect in every way.

The conversation came to an end, with both of us unhappy with the result. He
felt I did not demonstrate enough faith in the perfection of saintly
personalities, and I felt he was guilty of distorting the Torah's words and
distorting the reality of the human condition. <SNIP>
---------------------


memory:) A friend just told me a story of someone he knew who was not overly
bothered by social graces. This fellow asked the Skverer Rebbe what the
difference between the two of them were. "You're a person, and I'm a
person!" The Rebbe agreed with him, but said that the difference is that
every move he makes is scrutinized, reported on, and followed. So he has to
be perfect!

It was a good answer to a good question, I think!

KT,
MYG




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:53:57 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and


On 1/11/2011 8:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:20:20PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 1/11/2011 6:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> Why is it that everyone stands for the chasan and kallah at a wedding,
>>> but so few of us have a minhag to stand for Lekha Dodi? There we have
>>> a kalah, and in some nusachos, she is identified with "Shabbas Malkesa".
>
>> Surely everyone stands at least for the last verse, where she's welcomed
>> in.
>
> But if you stand for a regular kallah, why not for an idiomatic kallah
> who is explicitly called a malkesa? She is the same kalah/malkesah in
> the first verse as when we explicitly say do on the first.

But when is she metaphorically making her "entrance"?

BTW, L minhag is to stand for the whole thing, so your question doesn't
start; but here I'm answering why most people don't.


>>> (I just noticed the femanine form, as opposed to the girsa in shas
>>> we discussed in the past that had "Shabbos Malka", with an alef, in the
>>> masculine.)
>
>> That's because it's based on kabalah.
>
> Are you okay saying the gemara is inconsistent with qabbalah? I find
> that a surprising thing for a chassid to be comfortable with.

In the gemara's time kabala was strictly for the yechidei segulah.
One can see some hints to it if one looks hard enough, or things that
make sense if you realise that the authors were familiar with kabala,
but it was not to be taught to the public, so there's not going to be
anything explicit.  And al pi nigleh, a king is more important, so it's
better to compare Shabbos to that.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 21:12:23 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New


R' Joseph Kaplan:
> Isn't there another downside (assuming full consent, no coercion
> etc. which is an assumption that very well might not be justified); i.e.,
> that rich people whose condition is not as serious as that of poor people
> will live and the poor people will die?

Yes. And this is different from every other illness, exactly how? Someone
who can afford the Mayo Clinic will get better care than someone who comes
to the emergency room at 3 AM. That's the way the world is. And every
attempt to change that has failed.

KT,
MYG




Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 21:05:52 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and


R' MB:
>> Why is it that everyone stands for the chasan and kallah at a wedding,
>> but so few of us have a minhag to stand for Lekha Dodi? There we have
>> a kalah, and in some nusachos, she is identified with "Shabbas Malkesa".

R' ZS:
> Surely everyone stands at least for the last verse, where she's welcomed
> in.

R' MB:
> But if you stand for a regular kallah, why not for an idiomatic kallah
> who is explicitly called a malkesa? She is the same kalah/malkesah in
> the first verse as when we explicitly say do on the first.

Until the last verse we're still talking to each other, saying,
"Let's go greet her!" She doesn't come in until the last verse, "Bo'ee,
Ateres Baalah."

Halachically, this jives with Nusach Sefard, which is Mekabel Shabbos at
"Bo'ee Challah Shabbos Malkesa."


R' Isaac Balbin:
> The Rav, RYBS used to go towards the door for Boi VeShalom, according to R'
> Schachter.

Unlike R'MF, who used to turn towards the west wall. 

KT,
MYG




Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 02:24:30 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and


R' Micha Berger asked:

> Why is it that everyone stands for the chasan and kallah at
> a wedding, but so few of us have a minhag to stand for Lekha
> Dodi? There we have a kalah, and in some nusachos, she is
> identified with "Shabbas Malkesa".

Mmmm.... That's not how I would phrase it. From what I've seen, everyone
does indeed stand for the Malka at Lecha Dodi. The difference is that some
stand for all of Lecha Dodi, and others stand only for the last stanza.

Perhaps this comes from different ways of applying Yoreh Deah 244:2 to this
situation. Speaking about the mitzva of showing kavod to a chacham, the
Mechaber writes: "From what point must one get up? From when he enters his
four amos."

The Malka does not actually enter until the end of Lecha Dodi, or perhaps
not even until Mizmor Shir. But at what point does she enter our Daled
Amos? I can easily see that some would say that she enters our daled amos
at the beginning of Lecha Dodi, and it is at that point that we rise in her
honor.

But I can also see another perspective. I have heard (and I think the Taz
here might explain) that it is actually *wrong* to stand too early, because
it does not honor the chacham unless one rises in his actual presence. With
this in mind, I can easily see why some would *davka* remain seated for the
first stanzas, and rise only upon reaching "Bo'ee..."

(On the other hand, this argument suggests that, at a wedding, we should
not rise as soon as the chasan and kallah enter the room, but only when
they approach closer. However, a more in-depth study of Hilchos Kavod
Chacham and Hilchos Kibud Av will show that that the actual shiur of
distance can vary with the situation. My point in this post has been merely
to show that that a delayed standing for an invisible honoree could
possibly be a good idea.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4eb0aa44aaec912745e2st02vuc



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 02:46:39 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha?


R' Joseph Kaplan wrote:

> Isn't there another downside ... i.e., that rich people whose
> condition is not as serious as that of poor people will live
> and the poor people will die? ...
> Is it just/moral/halachically permissible ... for the rich
> person to get the transplant and the poor person to die, when,
> if the poor person got the transplant, both of them might have
> lived (albeit the rich person having to undergo additional
> dialysis)?

How wonderful it would be if the rich person would offer to pay for the
poor man's transplant, and it would certainly be a great mitzvah of tzedaka
(and, I suppose, pikuach nefesh).

But I don't think the rich person is obligated to do this. He certainly doesn't have to do it for every single patient who is poorer than him.

For some reason, Hashem allows us a great deal of latitude in where we give
our tzedaka. (Yes, there are guidelines, but there's still a lot of
latitude within those guidelines.) I often wonder about inequities in our
system, and the possibility (probability? certainty?) that some tzedakos
get more donations for reasons which have nothing to do with their relative
worthiness.

I'm trying to keep this as vague and as general as I can. I'm talking about
varied institutions within a category, and also about the various
categories. My heartstrings are tugged by this one, and yours by that one.
It seems unfair, but sometimes it looks like Hashem designed it that way on
purpose.

Anyway, my point is to acknowledge that my heart strongly agrees with RJK, but I'm not sure if my brain does.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4eb0af4a6b0bd1011466st04vuc



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 05:48:48 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New


On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 09:12:23PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: Yes. And this is different from every other illness, exactly how? Someone
: who can afford the Mayo Clinic will get better care than someone who comes
: to the emergency room at 3 AM. That's the way the world is. And every
: attempt to change that has failed.

The rich person who has money is like the one person in the desert who
has the canteen. As R' Aqiva says, "vechei achikha imakh" -- if it isn't
going to be "imakh", there is no obligation of "vechei".

This is why I focused the question not on the buyer, but on the broker.
The broker's position is more like a health care provider or the public
kupah, who have halakhos of triage.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:24:04 -0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Birds & Fish in the Mabul


RMB writes:

> I think harder to translate as referring to a less-than-global event
> would be 6:17, "... leshacheis kol basar acher bo ruach chayim mitachas
> hashamayim; kol asher ba'aretz yigvah."
> 
> Similarly 7:19, "kol heharim hagevohim *asher tachas kol hashamayim*".
> 
> "Mitachas hashamayim" and moreso "kol hashamayim" lack the ambiguity
> of whether eretz or adamah refers to the whole world, a piece of it,
> a clump of dirt, etc...

But note that your translation does assume that, for example, the mountains
on the moon are a part of shamayim (not to mention those of Mars, Venus
etc).  We now know and are able to touch rocks and clumps of dirt that make
up the great mountains of the moon and these planets.  

A common way of understanding this today, is to say that the moon and
planets are really part of ha-aretz, and not part of shamayim (ie Neil
Armstrong did not spend time in shamayim).  This allows for the existence of
at least a certain level of space travel and the various probes and rockets
we are sending up there. But if you do say that, then surely on your
understanding of asher tachas kol hashamayim, the moon and planets would
also have needed to be flooded.

Even without this, do note that if the sky as we define it on earth is
shamayim for the purposes of this pasuk, then due to the earth being round,
we would have to say that earth is really enveloped in shamayim, meaning
that all parts of the earth are both tachas the bit it is "underneath" and
over the bit over the corresponding land on the other side of the globe.
From the point of view of an Australian, the bit of shamayim on view in
Eretz Yisroel is tachas where they stand (ie technically the most correct
direction in order to face Yerushalim is straight down).  And so, since the
bit of shamayim on view in Australia is tachas where Noach is standing (with
the land of Australia, not to mention the fiery furnace of the earth's
molten core in between), arguably therefore even where Noach is standing is
not tachas hashamayim, but actually on top of some parts of shamayim (the
bits visible in Australia).

The simplest way out of this mess, it seems to me, is to understand the
Torah as using the language of men and in particular, the language of the
men at the time of the mabul. To the men of the mabul, the shamayim was the
sky over *them*, the one that they could see, and kol hashamayim was all the
sky they were ever in any position to see. The sky over Australia is thus
not shamayim or a part of kol hashamayim, it was not anything they had any
dealing with or thought about, and the fact that it is technically under
them is therefore irrelevant.  That of course means no necessity for the
land and mountains of Australia, being under a sky which is not shamayim
within the definition, to be flooded, and even more so, no implication in
the pasuk that the mountains of the moon were flooded.  To the men of the
mabul, the moon was a part of shamayim, to us it may not be any more. To
HaShem of course, if he created it in a way that rockets can be sent there,
it was never part of his heavenly domain - so how could he use the term
shamayim in the Torah to clearly include the moon?  The only way that to my
mind makes any sense is to understand HaShem's use of shamayim in the Torah
is to be a use of a term as man understood it.  In that regard, I think that
shamayim and kol hashamayim are in fact much more difficult to translate in
an absolutist way even than ha-aretz.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana




Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:37:50 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Birds & Fish in the Mabul


On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:24:04AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
: > I think harder to translate as referring to a less-than-global event
: > would be 6:17, "... leshacheis kol basar acher bo ruach chayim mitachas
: > hashamayim; kol asher ba'aretz yigvah."

: > Similarly 7:19, "kol heharim hagevohim *asher tachas kol hashamayim*".

: > "Mitachas hashamayim" and moreso "kol hashamayim" lack the ambiguity
: > of whether eretz or adamah refers to the whole world, a piece of it,
: > a clump of dirt, etc...

: But note that your translation does assume that, for example, the mountains
: on the moon are a part of shamayim (not to mention those of Mars, Venus
: etc).  We now know and are able to touch rocks and clumps of dirt that make
: up the great mountains of the moon and these planets.

This is not a problem with my translation, but with the words themselves.
After all, if we take shamayim in the spiritual sense, then the pasuq would
be saying that the moon, Mars, Venus, and galaxies beyond were flooded. So
it must be meant in a spacial sense.

: A common way of understanding this today, is to say that the moon and
: planets are really part of ha-aretz, and not part of shamayim (ie Neil
: Armstrong did not spend time in shamayim)...

I think more common is to recognize shamayim as having multiple
translations. Rather than talking about the moon and angels sharing
the same abode.

I think etymologically it is built from "sham", and thus means
"thereness", and would be a term referring to any unreachable domain.
(Contrasted to "aretz", that which can be spanned, related to "rutz"?
At least that is RSRH's take on alef-prefix nouns. But in any case,
my comment about "shamayim" stands no worse without this contrast.)

: Even without this, do note that if the sky as we define it on earth is
: shamayim for the purposes of this pasuk, then due to the earth being round,
: we would have to say that earth is really enveloped in shamayim, meaning
: that all parts of the earth are both tachas the bit it is "underneath" and
: over the bit over the corresponding land on the other side of the globe.

Now that we realize the earth is round, we also realize that up and down,
me'al umitachas, comprise a radial dimension. Altitude is the radius from
the center of the earth (perhaps minus sea level or actual local ground
level), and points along different Cartesian (right-angle) dimensions for
people on different parts of the earth.

Me'al would therefore mean "away from the center".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 05:31:39 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha?



How wonderful it would be if the rich person would offer to pay for the
poor man's transplant, and it would certainly be a great mitzvah of tzedaka
(and, I suppose, pikuach nefesh).

But I don't think the rich person is obligated to do this. He certainly doesn't have to do it for every single patient who is poorer than him.

==========================================
Someone asked earlier about the priority categories in horiyot, my answer
is lmaaseh they are almost universally ignored and I haven't found a clear
halachic reason why (e.g. r'sza says it would be very difficult today). 
Now add your issue-I have a talmid chacham/kohain/man and a wealthy/am
haaretz/woman/convert and only one available kidney.  Must the community
buy it for the former, can the latter outbid?
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.




Go to top.

Message: 16
From: "Joseph C. Kaplan" <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:58:13 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New





> Me: Isn't there another downside (assuming full consent, no coercion etc. 
> which
> is an assumption that very well might not be justified); i.e., that rich
> people whose condition is not as serious as that of poor people will live
> and the poor people will die?
> -----------------
>
> RMYG: And this is different from every other illness, exactly how? Someone
> who can afford the Mayo Clinic will get better care than someone who comes
> to the emergency room at 3 AM. That's the way the world is. And every
> attempt to change that has failed.

RZS responded similarly; that this is the way of the world -- the rich have 
it better.  And that's true.  Bt the question I raise is whether that has to 
be the case. And thus, even if it is true that "every attempt to change it 
has failed," why does that stop us from trying to change again if that would 
be a better, fairer, more just and ethical way of acting.

And organ transplant is an area where maybe we can change it because it is 
new so we have some control over how it is developing.  We've set up a
system in the US that seems to be better; why defend someone who violated
it.  IOW, my argument is that the problem is not that brokering organs 
violates the law, it is that it violates and undermines a good system which 
determines  who should get the organ on the basis of who needs it the most 
from a medical standpoint.

In sum, AISI it's not particularly relevant whether the rich have it better 
in every other area including medical issues or whether this type of 
societal action has or has not failed in the past.  My issues are (a) what 
is the best way to proceed now and (b) once that is determined, is it 
feasible to do so.

Joseph Kaplan 





Go to top.

Message: 17
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 05:33:42 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] standing for a Chattan and Kallah



I once asked this to Rav Zalman Nechmya Goldberg - "Is there a source to
stand for a chattan or kallah when they make their way to the chppah?" he
said "yes, look at the commentary of the RA MBartenura (and the Tiferes
Yisroel) to the MIshna of Bikurim 3:3.

Ari Kahn
======================================================
Which of course brings us to what mitzvah is the kallah (and perhaps chattan) on the way to do?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111102/be958faf/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 219
***************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >