Rabbi Frand points out that every time Moshe Rabbeinu warned Par'o and his court about an upcoming plague, he would immediately leave. When someone must convince someone to act, it is best to allow that person to save face and appear to have made the decision on his own. Otherwise, he is likely to refuse to "give in" to pressure, even if it is the best thing for him to do. We see that also in the reaction to the plagues in which Par'o "strengthened his heart" (which in Hebrew is the symbol for the will). He could not allow himself to be "threatened" by a group of unruly slaves and diminish his "honor".
Rabbi Frand also points out the necessity for a man to have a wife. He needs someone to look on a situation from outside but who will be considered "part of him" so that he will listen to the advice.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Monday, January 02, 2012
Vayigash: 66 + 3 = 70
כו. כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַבָּאָה לְיַעֲקֹב מִצְרַיְמָה יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ מִלְּבַד נְשֵׁי בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב כָּל נֶפֶשׁ שִׁשִּׁים וָשֵׁשׁ:
כז. וּבְנֵי יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר יֻלַּד לוֹ בְמִצְרַיִם נֶפֶשׁ שְׁנָיִם כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה שִׁבְעִים:
26. All the soul(s) coming to Egypt with Jacob, those descended from him, excluding the wives of Jacob's sons, all the soul(s) were sixty six.
27. And Joseph's sons, who were born to him in Egypt, two soul(s); all the soul(s) of the house of Jacob who came to Egypt were seventy.The commentators discuss how the total that came from Canaan was sixty six, while adding the three who were in Mitzraim gives a total of seventy. Some commentators say that Yaakov himself was the seventieth person. Others say that Yocheved was born "in the gates of Egypt and wound up being the seventieth person. However, I have come up with another possibility. The שבטים (Yosef's brothers) are counted but the verse explicitly states that their wives were not counted. On the other hand, Yosef's wife אסנת בת פוטי פרע (Asenas), while not mentioned by name, is not explicitly excluded.
The Torah does not say something unless it is meant to teach us something. When counting people, the wives are normally not mentioned unless there is a specific need. However אתנת, while not mentioned by name is not explicitly excluded.Thus, since they had two children, there were four people in Egypt.
The question is now why she would be counted when the other wives were not. The significance of the way Menashe and Ephraim are spoken of comes through. The term used is אשר יולד לו (that were born to him) shows that she very carefully ensured that they were raised to follow in the way of Yoseph and to be worthy of being counted among the "Children of Israel". In fact they merited to be counted as the progenitors of tribes themselves.they were raised to a life of privilege and power. Their father was the viceroy of Egypt who controlled everyone and everything around them. The Medrash states that Menashe was the one who carried out his father's orders and ensured that everything worked all right. Ephraim learned with Yaakov and maintained the tradition.
Rabbi Beryl Wein points out that throughout our history, the intermarriage rate has been determined more by the way that the goyim have treated us than by our ability to resist assimilation. We have been able to survive the persecutions of the past and fight against the forces that attempt to destroy us. However, the most difficult tests have been the necessity to learn to live in a non-Jewish society that treats us kindly or allows us to live freely. This is the test that we are face with now in the United States. We have lost more Jews to assimilation than we have to persecution. This is the lesson of Ephraim and Menashe and what we need to learn from אתנת.
The Torah tells us that the redemption will be in the reverse order of the exile.
“וזכרתי את בריתי יעקב ואף את בריתי יצחק ואף את בריתי אברהם אזכור והארץ אזכור” (ויקרא כו מב).Avraham was regarded as a "Prince of G0d". Yitzchak was able to live in Geror and become wealthy and live in peace, though he was harassed before he could settle down. Yaakov became a penniless wanderer who had to work and fight and undergo physical hardships. The redemption will be in the reverse order. First we survived the physical attempts to destroy us; the Crusades, the Spanish Expulsion, the Holocaust, and all the other massacres and attempts to destroy us. We are now attempting to learn the lesson that אתנת and יוסף taught Ephraim and Menashe, how to survive as Jews in a country in which it is easy to assimilate and in which we are accepted. Only when we learn how to pass this test can we reach the level of Avraham and be recognized as נשיא אלוקים.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Bikur Cholim sometimes means "Do not Visit"
The medrash in Vayera states that Hashem visited Avraham on the third day after Bris Milah when he was "sitting in the doorway of the tent in the heat of the day"
Only when he was able to go to "the door of the tent" was he able to receive visitors. Thus, it is improper for someone to actually visit a sick person when it would be more debilitating for them to receive visitors. Notice also that Hashem does not speak to Avraham or tell him anything. It is up to the sick person to decide how much he wants to talk and what he wants to talk about. It is only when Avraham actually gets up and addresses the "messengers" that interaction is initiated.
We should learn from this how to behave when visiting a sick person, just as we learn a similar lesson in how to behave when paying a shiva call.
א. וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם:
The obvious question is why the third day and not earlier. This is the basic source of the mitzva of Bikur Cholim. One of the explanations, quoted by Rashi, says that this was on the third day because that is the day that the pain is worst and the real healing starts. However, this still does not explain why Hashem waited until then and did not pay the visit earlier. One possibility is based on the fact that this was the day that Avraham actually was able to sit "in the doorway of the tent" and receive visitors. Even though the pain was not as bad earlier, he was still suffering the trauma of the surgery and was recovering from the shock. That is why a person is placed in a recovery room after surgery and requires a certain amount of time before visitors are allowed.
Only when he was able to go to "the door of the tent" was he able to receive visitors. Thus, it is improper for someone to actually visit a sick person when it would be more debilitating for them to receive visitors. Notice also that Hashem does not speak to Avraham or tell him anything. It is up to the sick person to decide how much he wants to talk and what he wants to talk about. It is only when Avraham actually gets up and addresses the "messengers" that interaction is initiated.
We should learn from this how to behave when visiting a sick person, just as we learn a similar lesson in how to behave when paying a shiva call.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Breishis - Creationism and Evolutionism
In fact, the arguments between the "Evolutionists" and the "Creationists" that have been occurring in the modern world (and especially in politics and the internet) imply that neither side understands what the issues involved might be. The "Evolutionists" assume that as long as the "science" seems to indicate that evolution is a valid process, then that disproves creation. One of the logical flaws that this leads to is the fact that no matter how far back one goes, the Evolutionist doctrine requires a prior source. The "Creationists" assume that there can be no physical evidence for the existence of the universe before whatever arbitrary time is assumed for the creation. Isaac Asimov once wrote an article discussing the "Big Bang". In it he came up with an explanation of the Big bang that involved the collision of two proto-universes. He then follows the analysis back to what "created" the proto-universes and what "created" whatever he called that previous "creation". He then waves his hand and says that "proves" that creation is not true.
One point that this ignores is that the definition of "creation" implies that the universe could have been created at any point in its development with all the evidence that the Evolutionists rely on. This is the main flaw in the Creationist argument as well. Just as the Torah states that the trees were created bearing ripe fruit, animals must have been created with appropriate age distribution in the herds, passenger pigeons require massive flocks to survive, mushrooms require dead trees on which to grow ... That is, the unstated assumption of the Evolutionist is that creation must occur with everything in a beginning state. An example of this is the assumption that Adam could not have seen the stars because the light would not have had the time to reach the Earth and be visible in the night sky. In fact, once one assumes creation, one cannot prove that the universe was not created with this post on your computer screen while you are in the middle of reading it. The universe could have been created 5 seconds, 5,732 years, or 15 billion years ago and we would be unable to tell the difference.
As can be seen this is the same logical flaw that disproves the pagan definition of "gods" (small g deliberate) as it leads to an infinitely recursive definition set. In the various myths of the various pagan religions, the "gods" are always defined as the "children" of a "father god" and a "mother" with handwaving taking the place of the original "father" and "mother". Consider the Asgardian myths, the Greek myths, of the Babylonian myths. They all have the "original" deities being the children of a pre-existing being of some sort which is just assumed to have been there. For example, consider The Norse Creation Myth which begins
In any case, the monotheistic religions take the pagan idea and state that no matter how far back one must go, there must eventually be a "Prime Cause" because of the Turtles All The Way Down paradox. In this case, the idea of the monotheistic religions is that since the "gods" each require a creator, they are not worth worshiping and only the Primal Cause can be omniscient, omnipotent , or "outside the Universe". Thus only this Primal Cause is worth worshiping no matter how many levels of intermediaries there might be. The main monotheistic religions state that as a result of this, there is no point in assuming the levels of intermediaries since there is no evidence that they exist. As a result, the Primal Cause must have created the physical universe directly. It is only at that point that the physical evidence that the Evolutionists rely could have begun.
The main flaw in the Creationist argument is the assumption that there must be a flaw in the physical evidence. That is, they refuse to accept that the process of Evolution can be true at all or that the physical evidence can exist. It is as if they assume that if creation occured 5,772 years ago. The can be no fossil evidence in the layers of the Earth. It is as if they assume that G0d would be lying to them if the physical evidence of the evolution appeared. It would be like the question that Clarence Darrow asked Williams Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial if Adam had a navel. It would be like claiming that trees could not have tree rings showing the apparent age or that Adam could not have seen the stars because the light would not have had the time to reach the Earth.
The result of this is that both the Evolutionists and the Creationists are arguing about different matters and from totally different assumptions. Thus, the argument in the modern world is actually meaningless.
One point that this ignores is that the definition of "creation" implies that the universe could have been created at any point in its development with all the evidence that the Evolutionists rely on. This is the main flaw in the Creationist argument as well. Just as the Torah states that the trees were created bearing ripe fruit, animals must have been created with appropriate age distribution in the herds, passenger pigeons require massive flocks to survive, mushrooms require dead trees on which to grow ... That is, the unstated assumption of the Evolutionist is that creation must occur with everything in a beginning state. An example of this is the assumption that Adam could not have seen the stars because the light would not have had the time to reach the Earth and be visible in the night sky. In fact, once one assumes creation, one cannot prove that the universe was not created with this post on your computer screen while you are in the middle of reading it. The universe could have been created 5 seconds, 5,732 years, or 15 billion years ago and we would be unable to tell the difference.
As can be seen this is the same logical flaw that disproves the pagan definition of "gods" (small g deliberate) as it leads to an infinitely recursive definition set. In the various myths of the various pagan religions, the "gods" are always defined as the "children" of a "father god" and a "mother" with handwaving taking the place of the original "father" and "mother". Consider the Asgardian myths, the Greek myths, of the Babylonian myths. They all have the "original" deities being the children of a pre-existing being of some sort which is just assumed to have been there. For example, consider The Norse Creation Myth which begins
Later, there is a "creation" of a a man named Buri who had a son named "Bor" who had a son name "Odin". There is no explanation of who Buri married. However, in the summary above, we see no explanation where Muspellheim, Surt, Ginnungagap, and Niflheim actually came from.Muspell
The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are so hot that those who are not native to that land cannot endure it. Surt sits at Muspell's border, guarding the land with a flaming sword. At the end of the world he will vanquish all the gods and burn the whole world with fire.
Ginnungagap and Niflheim
Beyond Muspell lay the great and yawning void named Ginnungagap, and beyond Ginnungagap lay the dark, cold realm of Niflheim. Ice, frost, wind, rain and heavy cold emanated from Niflheim, meeting in Ginnungagap the soft air, heat, light, and soft air from Muspell.
Ymir
Where heat and cold met appeared thawing drops, and this running fluid grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir.
In any case, the monotheistic religions take the pagan idea and state that no matter how far back one must go, there must eventually be a "Prime Cause" because of the Turtles All The Way Down paradox. In this case, the idea of the monotheistic religions is that since the "gods" each require a creator, they are not worth worshiping and only the Primal Cause can be omniscient, omnipotent , or "outside the Universe". Thus only this Primal Cause is worth worshiping no matter how many levels of intermediaries there might be. The main monotheistic religions state that as a result of this, there is no point in assuming the levels of intermediaries since there is no evidence that they exist. As a result, the Primal Cause must have created the physical universe directly. It is only at that point that the physical evidence that the Evolutionists rely could have begun.
The main flaw in the Creationist argument is the assumption that there must be a flaw in the physical evidence. That is, they refuse to accept that the process of Evolution can be true at all or that the physical evidence can exist. It is as if they assume that if creation occured 5,772 years ago. The can be no fossil evidence in the layers of the Earth. It is as if they assume that G0d would be lying to them if the physical evidence of the evolution appeared. It would be like the question that Clarence Darrow asked Williams Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial if Adam had a navel. It would be like claiming that trees could not have tree rings showing the apparent age or that Adam could not have seen the stars because the light would not have had the time to reach the Earth.
The result of this is that both the Evolutionists and the Creationists are arguing about different matters and from totally different assumptions. Thus, the argument in the modern world is actually meaningless.
Why was Noach "forced" into the teivah?
I have always wondered why Noach being forced in to the teivah by the
flood water should be counted a flaw. Why couldn't it be that he waited
until the very last moment for the people to do teshuvah? Couldn't it be
that he was like Avrohom praying for S'dom up until the final decree?
This seems to be the reason why we say "forced by the flood waters".
When Hashem told Avrohom "there are not 10 tzadikim", Avrohom stopped.
He saw that S'dom had passed the point of no return and the judgement
was final. Noach saw that the rain had already come, the "light rain"
(from the medrash of hashem giving the last chance to people) had
passed, the heavy rain had come, the flood waters had started rising,
the last opportunity had passed. Yet he still waited until the flood
waters had "forced" him into the taivah. This showed that he was not
waiting because he wanted to hope that people would do teshuvah at the
last minute.
The medrash states that the word for everything perishing (vayigva) implies being "put to sleep" rather than being left to drown as the flood waters rose. By the time Noach had been forced into the teivah, he would have seen his and known that there was no point in waiting.
The medrash states that the word for everything perishing (vayigva) implies being "put to sleep" rather than being left to drown as the flood waters rose. By the time Noach had been forced into the teivah, he would have seen his and known that there was no point in waiting.
Noach, "tmimus" and his worlds
I saw an interesting dvar Torah on Noach about "tamim haya bedorosav".
The word "bdorosav" is plural meaning that he was "tamim" in all three of
the types of situation that he lived in; before, during, and after the
flood. That is, he reacted to each circumstance by trying to follow
hashem. Before the flood, he reacted to the circumstance of having to
live among reshaim and attempting to remain holy. During the flood, as
the medrashim state, he was constantly busy maintaining and supporting
the animals in the taivah and attempting to keep the remnants of the
world alive through the transition. During the aftermath, he became an "
ish sadeh", attempting to regenerate the world and restore civilization.
One of the points seems to be that he was unable to maintain the level of "tzidkus" without the full infrastructure that allowed him to be isolated from the rest of the world. In order to succeed at each of the tasks that faced him, he had to throw himself into the role required by that task, and be "tamim" in that role.
To survive in the world before the flood, he had to isolate himself and become a tzadik. This explains the argument as to whether he would have been greater in the time of Avraham or not. Was it a matter of his needing to be isolated in order to survive and reach the level that he did, and he would have been greater in the time of Avraham? Was it a matter of this was the best that he could do and he could not have reached a higher level, so that he would not have been able to reach a higher level in the time of Avraham.
The medrash that he did not sleep for the entire year of the flood, but was constantly busy feeding the animals, cleaning the teivah, etc also hints at this. The appropriate role for that time was one of constant effort. He threw himself into that effort. However, he could not be a "tzadik" in the same sense as he had been before because there was no one to interact with and no opportunity to do anything else.
After the flood, he became an "ish sadeh". Here too in this role he was "tamim". Unfortunately, this was actually a flaw. He was completely a "man of the field". He became so completely a part of this role that when the pressure eased up a little (after the harvest) he became drunk. Here, "tmimus" was actually a flaw. He should have been able to transcend his current role and been a "tzadik" even in that case.
This can also be a different explanation of the phrase "tamim haya bedorosav". He was only able to maintain himself as tamim during the generations (he was 600 at the time of the flood) that he lived among a society that could be considered a surrounding fence. Once the "pressure was off" he could not maintain the same level of behavior. This is similar to the way that many historians (such as Rabbi Berel Wein and Rabbi Dovid Katz) explain what happened after the ghettos were abolished or what happened in the United States. Rabbi Wein has used the phrase "a mile wide and an inch thick". This could be another difference between Avrohom's generation and that of Noach. Avrohom had to fight the society around him and constantly reject the pressure around him to conform. Noach had no pressure whatsoever. He was alone in the world and whatever he did, he would still be the "best". It is like the story of the man who arranged for his daughter to marry the "best boy in the Yeshivah". They married and moved to the town where the father-in-law supported them. After a while, the father-in-law noticed a slackening of the young man's efforts. When he spoke to the boy, he responded that he was learning more and with more intensity than anone in the town. The father-in-law answered that this was not what he had in mind when he said "best". Similaraly, the lack of the pressure that noach had used to keep himself a tzadik contributed to his downfall.
One of the points seems to be that he was unable to maintain the level of "tzidkus" without the full infrastructure that allowed him to be isolated from the rest of the world. In order to succeed at each of the tasks that faced him, he had to throw himself into the role required by that task, and be "tamim" in that role.
To survive in the world before the flood, he had to isolate himself and become a tzadik. This explains the argument as to whether he would have been greater in the time of Avraham or not. Was it a matter of his needing to be isolated in order to survive and reach the level that he did, and he would have been greater in the time of Avraham? Was it a matter of this was the best that he could do and he could not have reached a higher level, so that he would not have been able to reach a higher level in the time of Avraham.
The medrash that he did not sleep for the entire year of the flood, but was constantly busy feeding the animals, cleaning the teivah, etc also hints at this. The appropriate role for that time was one of constant effort. He threw himself into that effort. However, he could not be a "tzadik" in the same sense as he had been before because there was no one to interact with and no opportunity to do anything else.
After the flood, he became an "ish sadeh". Here too in this role he was "tamim". Unfortunately, this was actually a flaw. He was completely a "man of the field". He became so completely a part of this role that when the pressure eased up a little (after the harvest) he became drunk. Here, "tmimus" was actually a flaw. He should have been able to transcend his current role and been a "tzadik" even in that case.
This can also be a different explanation of the phrase "tamim haya bedorosav". He was only able to maintain himself as tamim during the generations (he was 600 at the time of the flood) that he lived among a society that could be considered a surrounding fence. Once the "pressure was off" he could not maintain the same level of behavior. This is similar to the way that many historians (such as Rabbi Berel Wein and Rabbi Dovid Katz) explain what happened after the ghettos were abolished or what happened in the United States. Rabbi Wein has used the phrase "a mile wide and an inch thick". This could be another difference between Avrohom's generation and that of Noach. Avrohom had to fight the society around him and constantly reject the pressure around him to conform. Noach had no pressure whatsoever. He was alone in the world and whatever he did, he would still be the "best". It is like the story of the man who arranged for his daughter to marry the "best boy in the Yeshivah". They married and moved to the town where the father-in-law supported them. After a while, the father-in-law noticed a slackening of the young man's efforts. When he spoke to the boy, he responded that he was learning more and with more intensity than anone in the town. The father-in-law answered that this was not what he had in mind when he said "best". Similaraly, the lack of the pressure that noach had used to keep himself a tzadik contributed to his downfall.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
False Prophet can sometimes tell the truth
There are several circumstances in which a False prophet can "tell the truth" ,still be liable for the death penalty, but be unable to be condemned by bais din (the court).. The reason is that he is saying something that cannot be proven to be false.
An example of the second case can be considered if someone declares (falsely) that G0d has commanded him to tell everyone to observe a mitzvah in the Torah (such as eating Kosher food). G0d did command us to do so and it is valid for someone to tell people to do so. However, the sin in this case is that a person is pretending to be a prophet. The last prophet (Micah) declared that there would be no further prophets until the final redemption. As a result, anyone who declared himself as a prophet during the second temple (for example) was lying. Indeed, that is how other "religions" arose after that time and why Jews have refused to accept them as valid.
An example of the third case can be found in Melachim Aleph (I Kings) chapter 13. A prophet (Iddo according to Rashi) was told to give a message to Yeravam (Jeroboam) and to return by a different road and not eat or drink along the way. As he was traveling back, an "old prophet" came to him and told him that he had been instructed by an angel that the command had been recinded and that Iddo was to come with him to eat and drink. This was a lie and Iddo was punished because he should have realized that the message would have come to him directly had it been true.
Abarbanel says that the "old prophet" thought that Iddo had given an excuse to avoid eating with Yeravam, but did not want to directly insult the king. However, Iddo should still have realized that he could not disobey his orignal command unless a malach came to him directly. When Abraham was about to sacrifice Yitzchak, he listened to the malach because the malach explained that Hashem had only wanted Yitzchak to be offered but not killed, and this had been done.
The fourth case is that of Yonah when he refused to go to Nineveh and attempted to commit suicide by going on a ship the Tarshish. He knew that he would be killed and asked the sailors to throw him overboard when he realized that he would be condemning the innocent sailors to death with him. It was only when he had been inside the fish for three days that he realized that G0d was not going to kill him that he did teshuvah and prayed for forgiveness.
There are also cases in which bais din is required to kill the false prophet.
An example of the second case occured when Paul pretended to receive a "prophesy" that people were no longer required to keep kosher.
An example of the third case would be if someone tried to declare that something specific would happen at a specific date. If it happens on the wrong date, it is a false prophecy. However, if it does not happen, but it was a prophecy of punishment, and the recipient did repent, then that does not prove it a false prophesy. An example of this is Yona at Nineveh. Since Nineveh repented, the prophesy of destruction was recinded.
- He quotes something that was told to another prophet and pretends that he had been told it
- He declares that G0d told him to announce something true, but he was not commanded to announce it.
- He declares that G0d told him to announce something, which cannot be proven true or untrue, but he was not commanded to announce it.
- He refuses to announce something that he had been commanded to announce
An example of the second case can be considered if someone declares (falsely) that G0d has commanded him to tell everyone to observe a mitzvah in the Torah (such as eating Kosher food). G0d did command us to do so and it is valid for someone to tell people to do so. However, the sin in this case is that a person is pretending to be a prophet. The last prophet (Micah) declared that there would be no further prophets until the final redemption. As a result, anyone who declared himself as a prophet during the second temple (for example) was lying. Indeed, that is how other "religions" arose after that time and why Jews have refused to accept them as valid.
An example of the third case can be found in Melachim Aleph (I Kings) chapter 13. A prophet (Iddo according to Rashi) was told to give a message to Yeravam (Jeroboam) and to return by a different road and not eat or drink along the way. As he was traveling back, an "old prophet" came to him and told him that he had been instructed by an angel that the command had been recinded and that Iddo was to come with him to eat and drink. This was a lie and Iddo was punished because he should have realized that the message would have come to him directly had it been true.
Abarbanel says that the "old prophet" thought that Iddo had given an excuse to avoid eating with Yeravam, but did not want to directly insult the king. However, Iddo should still have realized that he could not disobey his orignal command unless a malach came to him directly. When Abraham was about to sacrifice Yitzchak, he listened to the malach because the malach explained that Hashem had only wanted Yitzchak to be offered but not killed, and this had been done.
The fourth case is that of Yonah when he refused to go to Nineveh and attempted to commit suicide by going on a ship the Tarshish. He knew that he would be killed and asked the sailors to throw him overboard when he realized that he would be condemning the innocent sailors to death with him. It was only when he had been inside the fish for three days that he realized that G0d was not going to kill him that he did teshuvah and prayed for forgiveness.
There are also cases in which bais din is required to kill the false prophet.
- A false prophet says that the people must keep the Torah in the name of an idol
- A flase prophet attempts to nullify a law of the Torah, even if it is in the name of G0d
- A false prophet declares a sign and it does not come true in every detail.
An example of the second case occured when Paul pretended to receive a "prophesy" that people were no longer required to keep kosher.
An example of the third case would be if someone tried to declare that something specific would happen at a specific date. If it happens on the wrong date, it is a false prophecy. However, if it does not happen, but it was a prophecy of punishment, and the recipient did repent, then that does not prove it a false prophesy. An example of this is Yona at Nineveh. Since Nineveh repented, the prophesy of destruction was recinded.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
If you shecht with a light saber, is the animal kosher?
If you shecht an animal with a light saber is it kosher? asked by Elder Of Ziyon actually has a legitimate answer.
Chaim Casper answers on Mail Jewish
The main point is that the "blade" has no "mamashus" [physical existence]. In
"real" terms, it would be like using a laser beam, rather than a blade, to
create the slice. The original question in the daf yomi of Fourth of July -
Chulin 8a (appropriate isn't it) was that if someone heats a blade to a white
heat and uses it, is it valid? The question is whether the blade cuts the flesh
before or after the heat causes the flesh to separate in front of it. Since Rav
Zeira rules that the blade is what starts the cut and the incision spreads as it
is cut, the burn of the the heat is not considered as if it was burning the
trachea and esophagus before the slaughter.
In the case of a laser (or light saber) the flesh is vaporized rather
than cut. Thus, it would be treated as if it was "burned" rather than
slaughtered, which would make it a neveilah.
Another point is that the wound is cauterized as it is made. For
example, when Luke Skywalker lost his hand to the strike of Darth
Vader's light saber, the wound was cauterized as it was made and did
not bleed. In the dapim for the beginning of Chapter two of Chullin
(27 - 29), we see that the blood must flow freely. In fact, Rebbi
Yehuda says in the mishna that even if he slaughters a bird correctly,
it is not kosher until he cuts the major blood vessels. We also see a
similar law involving chaya [non-domesticated animals] or kodshei
beheima [domesticated animals brought on the altar] in the discussion
in the gemoro.
This means that if the cut was cauterized as it was made so that the
blood could not flow, it might not be a valid shechita [slaughter].
The halacha of the flesh immediately at the place of the cut is
different. However, that would be a subject for a different post.
I would continue the logic of the heated blade from 8A as well. Since
the gemora does not mention the idea of "cooked before being
kashered", it seems that it does not consider that a problem.
The Daf Yomi for 27 Tammuz 5771 (29 July), Chulin 33A, actually deals with the
case of what happens if the wound is cauterized as the animal is
slaughtered. It says that in a non-sacred case, the animal is still kosher
even if the blood does not come out of the blood vessels. This means that
the case of the heated knife mentioned earlier (which is similar to the case
of the light saber or laser), which cauterizes the wound as it is cut, would
still be kosher.
An animal slaughtered for a sacrifice (kodshim) is different as the blood
must be received in a bowl for sprinkling on the altar. In the case of a
chaya (non-domestic animal) or bird, while the blood must be covered,
apparently it does not require the blood to spill out. A bird must have the
blood vessels severed, but as in the case of the superheated knife, it seems
that they can be cauterized shut as long as the cut is made by the blade.
Thus, it appears that the only reason the chullin (non-sacred) animal would
be non-kosher is that the "blade" cuts by burning or vaporizing what it "touches" rather than by cutting.
As I said above, the gemora states that it is because the blade actually cuts
rather than burns that a white hot knife is kosher.
Another point is that if you consider the "blade" as moving bits of plasma, it can be considered as if it is an infinitely "long" virtual "blade" that is always moving in one direction. As a result, the shochet would not have to move it at all by manipulating it like a knife. Similarly, shooting a laser beam would be similar to shechting by shooting an arrow with an infinitely long sharp blade, even though it appears stationary to the human eye. Each photon is a moving part of the "blade". Of course since the photon does not have mamashus, it is like a fire that burns rather than a blade that cuts and makes the animal a tereifah.
Chaim Casper answers on Mail Jewish
A serious answer would be no. While on one hand the light saber
would have no p'gamim (nicks), on the other hand how would you
check the knife? B'dikah of the knife by running your hand down the blade is an integral part of the process.
Secondly, does the light saber burn/heat (i.e. cook) the flesh as it cuts
through the simanim (the majority of the esophogus and the trachea)? If it does, the meat would be traife as it is being cooked before it is
slaughtered.
B'virkat Torah
Chaim Casper
The main point is that the "blade" has no "mamashus" [physical existence]. In
"real" terms, it would be like using a laser beam, rather than a blade, to
create the slice. The original question in the daf yomi of Fourth of July -
Chulin 8a (appropriate isn't it) was that if someone heats a blade to a white
heat and uses it, is it valid? The question is whether the blade cuts the flesh
before or after the heat causes the flesh to separate in front of it. Since Rav
Zeira rules that the blade is what starts the cut and the incision spreads as it
is cut, the burn of the the heat is not considered as if it was burning the
trachea and esophagus before the slaughter.
In the case of a laser (or light saber) the flesh is vaporized rather
than cut. Thus, it would be treated as if it was "burned" rather than
slaughtered, which would make it a neveilah.
Another point is that the wound is cauterized as it is made. For
example, when Luke Skywalker lost his hand to the strike of Darth
Vader's light saber, the wound was cauterized as it was made and did
not bleed. In the dapim for the beginning of Chapter two of Chullin
(27 - 29), we see that the blood must flow freely. In fact, Rebbi
Yehuda says in the mishna that even if he slaughters a bird correctly,
it is not kosher until he cuts the major blood vessels. We also see a
similar law involving chaya [non-domesticated animals] or kodshei
beheima [domesticated animals brought on the altar] in the discussion
in the gemoro.
This means that if the cut was cauterized as it was made so that the
blood could not flow, it might not be a valid shechita [slaughter].
The halacha of the flesh immediately at the place of the cut is
different. However, that would be a subject for a different post.
I would continue the logic of the heated blade from 8A as well. Since
the gemora does not mention the idea of "cooked before being
kashered", it seems that it does not consider that a problem.
The Daf Yomi for 27 Tammuz 5771 (29 July), Chulin 33A, actually deals with the
case of what happens if the wound is cauterized as the animal is
slaughtered. It says that in a non-sacred case, the animal is still kosher
even if the blood does not come out of the blood vessels. This means that
the case of the heated knife mentioned earlier (which is similar to the case
of the light saber or laser), which cauterizes the wound as it is cut, would
still be kosher.
An animal slaughtered for a sacrifice (kodshim) is different as the blood
must be received in a bowl for sprinkling on the altar. In the case of a
chaya (non-domestic animal) or bird, while the blood must be covered,
apparently it does not require the blood to spill out. A bird must have the
blood vessels severed, but as in the case of the superheated knife, it seems
that they can be cauterized shut as long as the cut is made by the blade.
Thus, it appears that the only reason the chullin (non-sacred) animal would
be non-kosher is that the "blade" cuts by burning or vaporizing what it "touches" rather than by cutting.
As I said above, the gemora states that it is because the blade actually cuts
rather than burns that a white hot knife is kosher.
Another point is that if you consider the "blade" as moving bits of plasma, it can be considered as if it is an infinitely "long" virtual "blade" that is always moving in one direction. As a result, the shochet would not have to move it at all by manipulating it like a knife. Similarly, shooting a laser beam would be similar to shechting by shooting an arrow with an infinitely long sharp blade, even though it appears stationary to the human eye. Each photon is a moving part of the "blade". Of course since the photon does not have mamashus, it is like a fire that burns rather than a blade that cuts and makes the animal a tereifah.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Korach was an example of a modern politician
One of the phony arguments used by Korach to attempt to trigger his revolt was to tell the "story" of a poor widow. This is actually like the story of the "poor children" who were put in front of the cameras to try to get Obamacare passed.
In fact, even if it was meant to be set after the entry and settlement in the land it could not have been true. The land would have been inherited by her children and not by the widow. She could at most have been the administrator of her husband's estate. However, the people who died in the desert were those who were already at least 20 years old at the time of the spies. No man who was younger than twenty at the time of the spies died. However, even if the children had been born just before the entry into the land, by the time the seven years of conquest and the seven years of distribution were over, the "children" would have been old enough to take over their inheritance.
We also see that even if they had not taken effect, the laws announced for the benefit of the poor are treated as if they were unjust. Everyone was still wandering in the desert so that they could not have had a field to plant and till and harvest. They were still eating the daily manna so that they would not have needed the portions of the harvest that were set aside for the poor.
Besides that, the Levite and Priest cannot demand "their" portion of the grain. The owner of the grain, while required to give the portion, is able to choose which Levite or Priest is to receive the sacred portion.
We see that this widow was actually a very mean spirited person. She could not stand to enjoy her crop as long as any one else benefited. Just because she was reminded that the poor people or the Levite or Priest who had no other form of income were to get a portion of her crop, she sold the field so that no one would benefit.
Actually, the land was not hers, but her children's and by now they would have been old enough to claim the property. They would also have been required to make sure that she was supported, not just by the laws of the כתובה, but by the laws of honoring their mother. Even if she had the right to sell the field, she could only have sold it until the יובל (Yoveil - fifty year mark).
Consider also the price she supposedly got for the field. A field would have gone for more than the price of two female sheep that had never given birth. Had she bought fully grown sheep, of proven fertility and already giving milk, they would not have been subject to the law of the first born. What does this say about her character. She had to get rid of the field at once even if she had to sell it at a loss and she could not bring herself to buy anything that might have been of benefit to someone else in the past.
Notice how Korach carefully avoids bringing up the fact that she had no ram in order to impregnate the sheep. Thus, it is as if the lambs that were born appeared miraculously.
Of course, since she did not exist, this says more about Korach's character (who made her up) than the widow's.
Korach silently changes the rules so that she has to give the priestly gifts for the slaughtered sheep just as in the time in the desert. The Children of Israel would not have noticed this as this was the situation that they were used to. All meat slaughtered for food were handled as a Shelamim sacrifice. Korach ignored the fact that once the land was entered, the people were allowed to slaughter and eat the meat separately and no longer required to bring all slaughtered animals to the altar.
Note that he again changes the rules so that instead of eating the meat of the Shelamim sacrifice as required, she treats it as non sacred meat that can be made sacred. Also note that the ox and the donkey and the ram that appeared when they were needed to be part of the story have disappeared.
This is the way modern politicians attempt to bring up a story in order to convince people that their pet projects need to be passed. Similarly, when the politicians were trying to pass Obamacare, they claimed that children would be unable to get the drugs that they need even though the examples that they used actually were fully covered by current health insurance or were given the drugs free by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. In fact, it is only because of the laws that have been passed as a result of these stories that people find themselves in trouble.
Korach is an example of the modern day politician and used his false story to try to put himself in a position of power. He acted in the same way that Al Gore has acted with respect to "global warming" and his story is just as true.
There was a widow with two small children who owned a plot of landThis story was being told shortly after the sin of the spies and after the בני ישראל had been condemned to wander in the dessert for forty years. However, noone could have actually owned land at that point. Any land in Egypt had that might have been under the control of the slaves would have been abandoned when they left. The land of Israel had not yet been entered so that the "widow" could not own land that had not yet been distributed.
In fact, even if it was meant to be set after the entry and settlement in the land it could not have been true. The land would have been inherited by her children and not by the widow. She could at most have been the administrator of her husband's estate. However, the people who died in the desert were those who were already at least 20 years old at the time of the spies. No man who was younger than twenty at the time of the spies died. However, even if the children had been born just before the entry into the land, by the time the seven years of conquest and the seven years of distribution were over, the "children" would have been old enough to take over their inheritance.
When she went to plow the land, Moshe appeared and reminded her that she was forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey together (kilayim).Since he pretends that Moshe appeared and gave her the law, the incident must have occurred before they entered the land. However, besides the fact that they did not have land to sow while they were in the desert (which is why they were eating the manna), this law did not take effect until fourteen years after Moshe died and they first entered the land. In any case, she was not a "poor" widow considering what she was able to do.
When she went to sow the land, Moshe again appeared and told her that she could not plant a multiple seeds together (kilayim).Again the story has the problems mentioned above. Besides which we see that this is a wealthy widow and the "little field" is not so little since multiple crops could be sown.
At the harvest, Moshe reminded her of the laws of לקטת שככה ופעה (Leket, Shikchah, and Peah) which must be left for the poor. When it came time to store the produce Aharon appeared and demanded the levitical and priestly gifts of מעשר and תרומה (the tithe and the priestly portion).Now we see Aharon entering the story even though he died before Moshe and before the entry into the land. Again the laws are described even though they could not have taken effect yet.
We also see that even if they had not taken effect, the laws announced for the benefit of the poor are treated as if they were unjust. Everyone was still wandering in the desert so that they could not have had a field to plant and till and harvest. They were still eating the daily manna so that they would not have needed the portions of the harvest that were set aside for the poor.
Besides that, the Levite and Priest cannot demand "their" portion of the grain. The owner of the grain, while required to give the portion, is able to choose which Levite or Priest is to receive the sacred portion.
In despair, she sold the land and bought two sheep for the wool, milk, and lambs. When the first lambs were born, Aharon appeared and demanded the first born of each sheep (בכור) When shearing time came, he appeared and demanded his portion (ראשית הגז - the first of the shearing).Again we see the falsity from the actual words of the story. A כהן is forbidden to demand the required presents because the owner is allowed to choose whichever priest is to receive these "gifts".
We see that this widow was actually a very mean spirited person. She could not stand to enjoy her crop as long as any one else benefited. Just because she was reminded that the poor people or the Levite or Priest who had no other form of income were to get a portion of her crop, she sold the field so that no one would benefit.
Actually, the land was not hers, but her children's and by now they would have been old enough to claim the property. They would also have been required to make sure that she was supported, not just by the laws of the כתובה, but by the laws of honoring their mother. Even if she had the right to sell the field, she could only have sold it until the יובל (Yoveil - fifty year mark).
Consider also the price she supposedly got for the field. A field would have gone for more than the price of two female sheep that had never given birth. Had she bought fully grown sheep, of proven fertility and already giving milk, they would not have been subject to the law of the first born. What does this say about her character. She had to get rid of the field at once even if she had to sell it at a loss and she could not bring herself to buy anything that might have been of benefit to someone else in the past.
Notice how Korach carefully avoids bringing up the fact that she had no ram in order to impregnate the sheep. Thus, it is as if the lambs that were born appeared miraculously.
Of course, since she did not exist, this says more about Korach's character (who made her up) than the widow's.
Note again the fact that the "widow" could not bear to have any use out of something that someone else had benefited from. Now that the sheep had given birth, and the first shearing had been completed, they were no longer subject to the requirements of Priestly gifts. In spite of that, she could not allow herself to keep them even though she would have an income from now on and the flock would continue to increase (Assuming that the invisible rams continue to impregnate the sheep).
Again in despair, she slaughtered the sheep, and Aharon appeared again and demanded the shoulder, the jaw, and the stomach in accordance with the laws of the Shelamim sacrifice.
Korach silently changes the rules so that she has to give the priestly gifts for the slaughtered sheep just as in the time in the desert. The Children of Israel would not have noticed this as this was the situation that they were used to. All meat slaughtered for food were handled as a Shelamim sacrifice. Korach ignored the fact that once the land was entered, the people were allowed to slaughter and eat the meat separately and no longer required to bring all slaughtered animals to the altar.
In despair again, she declares the meat "cherem" or "hekdesh" so that no one can get any use out of it. Aharon appears again, claims the meat for the sanctuary and she is left with nothing.Again she cannot bear to touch something that any one else has gotten benefit from. Instead of eating the meat, and getting a full meal (or meals) out of it, she attempts to make it totally unusable by anyone. Again, Korach attempts to make the law appear to be harsh and destructive. Just because she appears to have forgotten that the Priests eat from that which has been sanctified (because they have no other source of income), he pretends that she is being harmed in some way.
Note that he again changes the rules so that instead of eating the meat of the Shelamim sacrifice as required, she treats it as non sacred meat that can be made sacred. Also note that the ox and the donkey and the ram that appeared when they were needed to be part of the story have disappeared.
This is the way modern politicians attempt to bring up a story in order to convince people that their pet projects need to be passed. Similarly, when the politicians were trying to pass Obamacare, they claimed that children would be unable to get the drugs that they need even though the examples that they used actually were fully covered by current health insurance or were given the drugs free by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. In fact, it is only because of the laws that have been passed as a result of these stories that people find themselves in trouble.
Korach is an example of the modern day politician and used his false story to try to put himself in a position of power. He acted in the same way that Al Gore has acted with respect to "global warming" and his story is just as true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)