Volume 37 Number 77
Produced: Mon Nov 11 22:30:58 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Avoda Zara
[David Waxman]
Circumventing Prohibition Of Charging Interest
[<rubin20@...>]
Eshet Kohen
[Gershon Dubin]
Henetz HaChama
[Haim Snyder]
Neutering Pets and Postage Stamps
[Andy Goldfinger]
A New Point about Legal Fictions
[Russell J Hendel]
sacrifices (2)
[Stan Tenen, Avi Feldblum]
Skin Contact
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 15:59:55 -0800
Subject: Re: Avoda Zara
>Beyond discussion of which religions are / are not avoda zara, are there
>appropriate or excluded actions when dealing with people who believe in
>avoda zara. In a diverse, multi-cultural, international workplace one
>will certainly come across people who are definitially believers in
>avoda zara ---- although the topic of discourse with them is
>"scientific" or "business" -- what are the boundaries? Can one sit down
>with them to a meal, etc.? Does anyone have a good source?
Don't know of a source offhand, but I will relay an incident. A
m`hadarin Chinese restaurant in Jerusalem had authentic Asians serving
the food and buddhas set out for decorations. The mashgiach was
observing the waiters as they set the platters of food down before the
'decoration' prior to serving it to the guests. After a while, he asked
them why they did this. They told him that they were obligated to offer
the food to their god prior to allowing mere mortals indulge in
it. Woops!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rubin20@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:21:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Circumventing Prohibition Of Charging Interest
From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
>I recently read a book called The Dagger Of Islam by John Laffin (a
>highly recommended read) in which he details the following method which
>has been used by Moslems to circumvent their prohibition of charging
>interest:
This is permissible under Torah law, but forbidden by Rabbinic
decree. In fact, this is the most prevalent case of Rabbinic interest,
and a great deal of the Laws of Interest revolve around this scenario.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:06:51 GMT
Subject: Eshet Kohen
<<Shimshon's mother was _not_ told to avoid cemeteries.>>
Neither, IIRC, was Shimshon himself.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Haim.Snyder@...> (Haim Snyder)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:28:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Henetz HaChama
In this volume and in previous volumes, there is a reference to "Naitz
HaChama" which is a term frequently, and improperly used. The first
word is HEnetz with the three letter root hey nun tzadi. The first hey
is part of the root and not a prefix for "the".
The proper term is "Henetz HaChama".
Haim Shalom Snyder
<haim.snyder@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:59:15 -0500
Subject: Neutering Pets and Postage Stamps
Stew Gottlied writes:
>"Is anyone familiar with the halachos regarding spaying a female dog?
>Specifically, what are the isurim and are there heterim ? What if the
>vet is a Jew ?"
I don't know about spaying a female dog, but I believe it is forbidden
to "neuter" a male pet. This brings up an issue I faced yesterday. I
live in the US and I went to my laboratory's mail room to buy some
postage stamps. One of the choices caught my eye -- a nice sheet of
stamps with cute pictures of cats and dogs. I was about to buy it when
I noticed that the sheet also contained the message "spay or neuter
pets." So -- I wondered -- would it be proper to buy these stamps and
thereby support a halachically forbidden practice? Instead, I bought a
sheet with pictures of Cary Grant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:32:27 -0500
Subject: A New Point about Legal Fictions
Almost all of v37n62 was devoted to discussion of LEGAL FICTIONS. The
following is a true story that happened to me. While this story does NOT
answer the questions on PROZBOL and SELLING CHAMETZ as legal fictions it
does offer a legitimate insight into some legal fictions which has not
yet been brought up.
While I was teaching in Williamstown (About 15 years ago) one irate
student called my home Friday night and left the receiver off the
hook. The result was that the phone continuously rung.
Since it was Shabbat I simply carried on my routine Shabbat activities
(practiciing leining was a bit of a challenge). I then tried to go to
sleep and found I couldnt with a ringing phone.
So I had to ask my non-Jewish neighbors. Recall that on Shabbat you cant
explicitly ask a non-jew. Here is the conversation I had
>ME: You know the phone is ringing without stop & because of my Sabbath
laws I cant turn it off
>HIM: I really respect people who observe their religion
>ME: It is really very annoying & I cant sleep
>HIM: I admire people who sacrifice for their religion.
>ME: Jewsih law doesnt allow me to explicitly ask a non-jew
to turn off the phone but I am allowed to hint to a non-jew
>HIM: Do you want me to turn it off?
>ME: I cant explicitly ask you but I wont object if you go in & do it
>HIM: Well do you want me to turn it off?
>ME: I cant ask you explicitly--but I cant sleep and really dont mind
you going in.
>HIM (After turning it off) I dont understand---what does Jewish law
accomplish by not allowing you to ask explicitly. It looks hypocritical
when you use this legal fiction of indirect asking.
>ME: Good question. The answer is simple: Biblically only I cant do work
on my Sabbath. There is however no Bibilical prohibition of my asking a
non-jew to do all my work. That (asking the non-jew) would be a
legal-fiction! It would allow me to do whatever I want on Shabbath thru
a non-jewish agent. But on the other hand sometimes you need something
done and it is not a goal of Shabbat law to prevent accomplishment. So
the religion allows me to ask A NON-JEW provided I do it in a
non-standard way--this non-standard asking creates a sort of symbolic
acknowledgement of the Shabbat law. Since the whole purpose of the
Shabbat law is not cessation of accomplishment but rather symbolic
affirmation of Gods sovereignty over creative activity, it is seen that
the indirect asking is not a legal fiction but an actual fulfillment of
the Sabbath Spirit.
I hope the Mail Jewish readership accepts this the same way my non-jewish
friend did.
Russell Jay Hendel; Http://www.rashiyomi.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 08:49:15 -0500
Subject: Re: sacrifices
At 04:46 AM 11/4/02, Avi Feldblum wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Stan Tenen wrote:
> > Doesn't this tell us that while sacrifices _might_ be in the picture, they
> > are _not_ required? Doesn't the word "only" tell us this?
>No it does not. I would argue that trying to derive whether sacrifices
>will be brought in the Third Temple based on Micha's chastisement of the
>people's behaviour is incorrect and misses the point of Micha's arguement.
Actually, I think you miss the point.
The admonition in Micah that we are to _only_ "do justly, love mercy, and
walk humbly with our God" is not _only_ a chastisement of people's behavior
at the time.
This is one succinct example of an _archetypal_ teaching.
These three -- justice, mercy, humility -- derive from the infinity and the
singularity of God.
It is against the absolute standard of God's truth that we know what it
means to do justice.
It is against the absolute standard of God's power that we know what it
means to love mercy.
And it is against the absolute standard of God's infinity that we recognize
how bittul we actually are.
Also, these three are the ultimate sacrifices that any human can make to
God. These are _ego_ sacrifices.
They are also what is known as the "manifesting principle", the means by
which anything and everything comes into this world (from God).
In this mode, justice is clear thinking. Mercy is hard work. And humility
is letting go.
These are also the principle by which children come into the world:
Conception, gestation, and birth.
These are also the principle enunciated in B'reshit 1:11 -- "Fruit tree
yielding fruit whose seed is in itself."
Seed -- Tree -- Fruit.
Whether or not we sacrifice animals in the physical world depends on
whether we see our lives as entirely physical, or not.
As we grow in maturity, and in Torah, we see life as more full of God, and
less full of things, and we become more spiritually sensitive.
Our animal natures and our allegiance to material reality may yet require
animal sacrifices for some Jews in some future time.
But our increasingly growing spiritual nature and sensitivity leads us to
be more concerned for _spiritual_ sacrifice (sacrifice of our ego, etc.)
than animal sacrifice.
The quote from Micah is only one succinct statement of these general
principles that pervade all of Torah and all of Talmud.
For people who do not understand what I'm writing about here, animal
sacrifice may be appropriate.
For people who do understand, animal sacrifice is gratuitous.
And quantum mechanics tells us why this should be so. Particles cannot
penetrate potential barriers, but their wave-equations can.
The ultimate barrier is death. Our egos (particle-like) cannot penetrate
death. But our loving-kindness (wave-like) can.
So, it is more important for us to sacrifice our egos by seeking justice,
loving mercy, and walking humbly, than it is to take the life of an animal
as a sacrifice (which is only symbolic of our dropping of our egos).
Be well.
Best,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:03:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: sacrifices
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Stan Tenen wrote:
> Whether or not we sacrifice animals in the physical world depends on
> whether we see our lives as entirely physical, or not.
> As we grow in maturity, and in Torah, we see life as more full of God, and
> less full of things, and we become more spiritually sensitive.
> Our animal natures and our allegiance to material reality may yet require
> animal sacrifices for some Jews in some future time.
> But our increasingly growing spiritual nature and sensitivity leads us to
> be more concerned for _spiritual_ sacrifice (sacrifice of our ego, etc.)
> than animal sacrifice.
> The quote from Micah is only one succinct statement of these general
> principles that pervade all of Torah and all of Talmud.
> For people who do not understand what I'm writing about here, animal
> sacrifice may be appropriate.
> For people who do understand, animal sacrifice is gratuitous.
Stan,
I debated with myself whether or not to reject this posting. I'm still far
from sure whether I have made the correct decision.
Your comments above, in my opinion, are not consistent with Halachic
Judaism and are such outside the bounds of this mailing list. A discussion
on whether there are valid sources who hold that animal sacrifices will
not be re-instituted in the third Temple, and an understanding of how they
deal with the associated sources, is a valid (if possibly contraversial)
topic. However, your comments that it depends on our "maturity" in
understanding Torah, and that the overwhelming majority of poskim who hold
that animal sacrifices will be a critical and central portion of the third
Temple practice are "people who do not understand" lead me to conclude
that your understanding of Halachic Judaism must be very different than
mine.
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:53:51 EST
Subject: Re: Skin Contact
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
In a recent post Carl Singer discusses cross gender skin
contact. If I understood him correctly, he suggests that cross
gender skin contact is a communal standard (minhag?) rather than a
halackik boundary. And while it is clearly true that incidental
cross gender skin contact (like the inadvertent touch of two
people that sit next to each other on a crowded bus) is permitted
- at least by most poskim (including rav moshe). It is not clear
that this psak is relevant to the discussed issue - ie hand
shaking and the like.
While I do know of gedolim that allow a person to _respond_ to an
offered cross gender hand shake, it would be a mistake I think to
call not responding a "communal standard". When Rav Moshe
discusses hand shakes he is explicit that a cross gender hand
shake is absolutely forbidden. He expresses disbelief that any
halachik authority could possibly permit such a practice. For him
at least this was an example of a touch that was clearly
forbidden.
Nonetheless there are halachik authorities that do permit (and practice)
such -- as noted in Telshe Chicago posting. Community standards and
halacha are not mutually exclusive as the note seems to imply. To
generalize, there are multiple, pious & learned "authorities" in
multiple communities and they differ in their viewpoint on many halachik
issues -- the right hand most viewpoint is not definitially the halacha
and thus community standards (of the application of halacha) apply.
Among many common examples are kashruth, mehizta composition / height,
dress code, etc.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 77
