Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
lesschumras: “Organ donation is not murder”
when the donor is only brain dead, as in zahava’s theoretical case and 90% of donations in the US, according to most Poskim it is outright murder.
Zahava: Your “kula” for one person is at the expense of someone else’s life. and it is MOST Poskim, not “some”, and if they are only brain dead it is irrelevant which organ is donated.
zahavasdad: if you desperately needed an organ transplant, would you murder a random individual on the street to steal his organ???
Murder is murder, regardless of how pitiful the person who may benefit from it. The Torah forbids killing one person to save another.
Sam: “any Posek who refuses to let people do this is Machshil es Harabbim and Gorem Sakanas Nefashos for many Jews”
Those are very irresponsible words to write about a Rav who prevents murder!!!
If the donor is truly dead and the issue is only Kavod haMeis, there are grounds to permit it due to Pikuach Nefesh. However, most organs can only be donated while the heart is still beating. According to most Poskim that brain death is not dead in Halacha, this is murdering one person to save another and is not permitted.
In our local Beis Din one pays a flat fee of ~$50, and it covers everything from beginning to end.
DY: “See M”B in 325:60 who equates “d’var mitzvah gemurah” (including hot food) with tzorech gadol”
Isn’t it obvious that the unusual term “d’var mitzvah gemurah” is different than “makom mitzva”???
“You used the term in response to MeemaYehudis, who asked the shaila”
Yes, so???
DY: “For example, the Aruch Hashulchan (34-36) explains the R’ma 253 in context of “makom mitzvah” which is equivalent to tzorech gadol”
Punkt fakert. Makom Mitzva is the lower level that is only permitted in a Shvus d’Shvus. He clearly is saying that were it a Tzorech Gadol the Rema l’Shittaso would permit it.
DY: “I’m also not sure that the ?”? means “chumra” the way we use it (optional)”
I’m shocked at the thought that you suspected me of using the term “chumra” to mean optional!!! Any serious student of Halacha knows that this is certainly not the way the term is used in Poskim.
However, it certainly indicates a lesser severity or certainty of Issur, and lends the stricture of the Pri Chadash less weight against the Tiferes l’Moshe and other Meikilim.
I am mystified as to why you are so certain of this point. The Rema 253 made no mention of any Tzorech at all.
I understand that you feel there is a contradiction between the Rema 253 and 276, and feel a need to make some distinction. However, your problem is based on a Hanacha that 253 is a Tzorech Gadol. A general rule in learning my Rebbeim taught me way back when is: when you have a problem based on a Hanacha, throw out the Hanacha!!!
Avi Flax is English speaking, a real Ben Torah, a nice person and extremely knowledgeable. His cell number is 057-310-7630
DY: “Also, in 325, he is only mattir items for tzorech Shabbos to be carried through a carmelis, not a r’shus harabim. Why not?”
“Also, in D”M, he is clearly talking about a tzorech Shabbos”
Again, you are confusing Tzorech Shabbos, which you correctly quote MB325:62 as “somewhat difficult to do without” with Tzorech Gadol. Th Rema was not Matir Tzorech Shabbos but was Tzorech Gadol, even for food.
“I don’t think one would be required to protest if someone had the R’ma to rely on”
See the Aruch HaShulchan I quoted above that you must.
“Although in this case, it actually wouldn’t make a difference, because it was also bishul aku”m”
Unless it was k’Ma’achal ben Drusai before Shabbos, which is most likely the case.
Health: I regularly quote the Aruch HaShulchan, both when he is Machmir and more often when he is Meikil. If you would follow the various topics I have written on, you would notice that I am by no means a compulsive Machmir. However, in the two topics we have debated, here and Chodosh, you are proposing Kulos that are irresponsible and based on a total lack of understanding of the Halacha.
“if you would bother taking the time to look up the Debrecener in Piskei Shabbos and Baer Moshe -I think he brings down who else holds it’s Mutter and why he is Someach on it”
yitay: “The Rashba is in Volume 1 Teshuva 495”
Yitay: To borrow from the Rashba you mentioned ?? ??? ?? ???????.
Furthermore, even if you will insist that the Rashba is describing a general definition of Ein Kavanaso, then his ruling is incompatible with the Terumas HaDeshen cited in SA YD 84 and many other cases I quoted previously from SA and other Poskim. So even if this would be the intention of the Rashba, which I still highly doubt, there is no reason to assume it is the accepted Halacha.
yitay: 1) “Are you saying that the rabbanan somehow make it that now it’s assur mid’oraisa?”
of course not, I don’t know how you could have read that into what I wrote. My point is “Psik Reisha will only take off the Knas for transgressing Ein Mevatlin, not the Gezeira of Berya”
DY: “He wouldn’t be mattir it just to absolve having to protest”
But Reb Moshe wasn’t Matir!!!
DY: “Lack of any other hot food is tzorech gadol, that was actually Health’s case on which this discussion began”
But the Rema says no such thing. He never says they had no other food!
“I’m suggesting a reason that the R’ma does not allow cooking even l’tzorech gadol. If you have a better reason, kol hakavod, but clearly he assers it”
But he does NOT mention any problem with cooking when there is a Tzorech Gadol, so there is no need for a “better reason”.
Yitay: the Pri Chadash OC also writes the same chiluk as RAE (Shut 77) and your Rav.
The Divrei Malkiel you expressed interest in who mentioned Psik Reisha is 2:42 and 43
Which Rashba does he understand supports his Psak?
yitay: 1) not batel miD’Rabbanan is NOT Batel. Psik Reisha will only take off the Knas for transgressing Ein Mevatlin, not the Gezeira of Berya.
3) OK, that’s a valid opinion. However, I pointed out before that a preponderence of Poskim hold otherwise. Since when is Rav Abadi MACHMIR for a minority opinion?
DY: in 276 no one distinguished between dif melachos. the MB only brought one opinion that food is more chamur. how do you know the Rema follows this opinion?
the Rema in 253 doesn not make any mention of lack of other food or other Tzorech Gadol.
yitay:
1 Psik Reisha is only a heter for the action of being mevatel, it will not make something batel that would not have been otherwise
3 so how does he understnd the Terumas HaDeshen? if safek alone is enough why mention Ein Kavanaso, unless it is also sufficient alone.
Yitay: the Terumas HaDeshen, as you certainly know mentioned two different reasons to permit grinding the infested wheat, Safek and Ein Kavanaso. The question is; does he require both factors, or either one is sufficient?
This Halacha was quoted in Shulchan Aruch 84:14. In Seif 13 the Shulchan Aruch cites the Orchos Chaim that one may heat honey to liquefy it to filter out pieces of the bees. The reason given is because even though inevitably he will be Maflit bee flavor into the honey and make it Batel, this is not his intention. He permits it even though the bees are visible and certainly present. This would appear to be a clear indication that Ein Kavanaso alone is Muttar, even without a Safek.
Some Achronim (Nachlas Tzvi, Divrei Malkiel and others) understand that the accomplishment of Ein Kavanaso is that previously his Bitul was a Psik Reisha, and this makes it Lo Nicha Lei. This should be enough to permit independently.
It should be straightforward in the Terumas HaDeshen that if the Safek consideration is sufficient alone, then Ein Kavanaso should operate independently as well.
DY: and based on one opinion in the Mishna Berura who says nothing regarding the Itur, you want to extrapolate and speculate a huge Ukimta in the Rema 276??? In my opinion that is a giant Dochek!
yitay: not so fast on the retraction. I will try to post later today a number of sources who are lenient for ein kavano l’vatel even when there is no safek.
DY: That Mishna Berura has absolutely no relevance to our discussion. You must have misstyped the Mareh Makom.
DY: why and on what basis would you propose differentiating between different Melachos?
DY: how do you understand the Rema 276?
DY: also, remember that the MB does not pasken like the Rema who allows amira l’Akum for a mitzva b’tzorech gadol. So, you can’t ask on the Rema from the Biur Halacha.
Health: I’ll have to agree with you here.
DY: “No, it says the pots (??????)”
That’s a pretty weak Diyuk to create a Stira in the Rema.
“You haven’t responded to the Biur Halacha, which is specifically referring to a case of tzorech gadol”
No, he refers to “Torech Shabbos”
Health: “I’ll tell you his reason – because of Kovod Habrious!”
Thank you. Since it is well known that Kavod HaBrios permitts many Issurim d’Rabannan and is stronger than a regular Tzorech Gadol which does not, it is clear that the Debritziner would not have permitted your case either.
Health: “I think that there are many”
I’m afraid you are incorrect. There are VERY few Poskim who agree with this Rema. This kind of speculation is part of the risk in Paskenening your own Shailos when unqualified to do so.
So, based on the Teshuvos printed in IGM, it is clear that he would have Paskened you may NOT ask a Goy to turn on your crockpot.
why do you think Reb Moshe would lie and say “many have been Maikil like the Rema”?
health: “many have been Maikil like the Rema in cases of Tzorech Godol to do Ameira L’acum”
can you name a single one, other than your supposed Debritziner?
mods: thanks for preserving the positive tone so everyone can enjoy the atmosphere of the CR
It was a dormitory and may have been exclusively so. The point is that each case has different factors and without knowing the precise circumstances the Debretziner was Matir, we cannot postulate a Klal that he opposed all the Poskim I listed.
If you would have asked Reb Moshe your Shaila if you could ask a Goy to turn on your crockpot, he would have answered NO!
“You see clearly – he didn’t have a problem with people being Somieach on Ameira L’Acum B’mokom Tzorech Godol”
no, he did “it’s fitting to be Machmir”
“He personally had the Minhag not to be Soimeach on this Rema”
again, no “in Europe we were Machmir”, it was everyone’s minhag
“he used it to be Matir time clocks”
also, no “I’m not going to Assur time clocks”
he wasn’t matir, just kept quiet
“he must of held there is something to this Heter and that’s why he said you can use time clocks for lights”
again, didn’t allow, just not asser, and even that, only lights. your crockpot where there is no minhag, he would clearly asser!!! also, real amira l’akum, he would asser, just clocks not!
Actually, your quote is selective and out of context. Reb Moshe in 4:60 was only lenient on a Shabbos clock, not a true Amira l’Akum. Furthermore, he explicitly differentiates between lights where there is already a Minhag to be lenient, and he is not capable of forbidding it, and other appliances. He clearly writes that it is wrong to rely on the Itur and the Minhag in Europe was to be stringent.
He would NOT permit your crockpot where there was no Minhag to be lenient.
“The Psakim I quoted comes from Piskei Hilchos Shabbos Vol. 3 & 4” “C’mon, it’s in Vol. 4 which wasn’t even printed till 1990”
You also mentioned vol3, which is where I checked. I didn’t see the context of his rulings, but you mentioned bathroom lights. When the generator broke in my son’s Yeshiva, HaRav Shteinman ruled that bathroom and stairwell lights are Pikuach Nefesh. If the Debretziner agreed, his Heter would not be relevent to a typical Tzorech Gadol.
take a position where people ask you questions. after getting stumped once or twice you’ll find yourself VERY motivated to chazer.
healt: I don’t know if I can access PHS, and there is no Be’er Moshe locally either. However, what you are quoting in his name is basicaly against Shulchan Aruch
sam: “We’re relying on the fact that it’s only a Chumra according to R’ Moshe”
It’s not. He holds it is Amira l’Akum
avi: any response to the LH issue. Also, the new headline about the fight in Chadera, can you call that anything other than LH?
Avi: Do you agree that American law does not determine and is irrelevant to Halachos of LH. Is there any right in Halacha to a public trial?
If you meant that it is a To’eles to the defendent, that would only be relevant at the trial phase of the proceedings, he would prefer the arrest itself be discrete.
So, can we agree that all these articles are unquestionably forbidden?
Avi: can we agree that today’s headlines are blatant and unmitigated LH. Regardless of ones opinion of the Eidah HaChareidis, the charges are currently unsubstantiated, there is little to no To’eles, and it is certainly speading news that was previously unknown.