Volume 21 Number 06
Produced: Wed Aug 16 22:03:15 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Eliyahu (2)
[Elozor Preil, Moishe Kimelman]
Pigeon Treatment (2)
[Constance Stillinger, Seth Ness]
Question of Interest (2)
[Jeff Mandin, Mark Rayman]
Yayin Nesech and Non-Religious Jews
[Carl Sherer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMPreil@...> (Elozor Preil)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 01:46:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Eliyahu
Richard Friedman writes:
Eliahu. In MJ 20:65, David Steinberg, while citing a source saying
that Eliahu was a Gadi, refers to a previous posting by Moshe Kimelman
on sources saying that Eliahu was a Kohen. Does anyone have at hand a
citation to Mr. Kimelman's posting, or can anyone (re)cite those
sources?
"Otzar Ishei Ha Tanach" cites the following opinions and sources:
1. Eliyahu was Pinchas (and thus, a Kohen) - Yalkut Shimoni Torah, 731.
(I don't know what 731 means, but I looked it up, and it appears in the
second paragraph on Parshas Pinchas in the name of Resh Lakish.)
2. He was from the tribe of Binyamin - Breishis Rabbah, 71:9
3. He was from the tribe of Gad - Midrash Shochar Tov, 90:3.
(I am unable to verify these last two sources.)
Interestingly, Radak mentions all three opinions (at the beginning of
KIngs I, chapter 18), and comments that all three opinions are built
upon flimsy prooftexts. Radak concludes that we simply cannot know the
truth about this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kimel@...> (Moishe Kimelman)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:11:36 +1000
Subject: Eliyahu
In mj # 70 Richard Friedman writes:
> 2. Eliahu. In MJ 20:65, David Steinberg, while citing a source
>saying that Eliahu was a Gadi, refers to a previous posting by Moshe
>Kimelman on sources saying that Eliahu was a Kohen. Does anyone have at
>hand a citation to Mr. Kimelman's posting, or can anyone (re)cite those
>sources?
The source I quoted was the gemara Bava Metzia 114b, where Rabbah bar Avuha
sees Eliyahu in a gentile cemetery and says, "Aren't you a kohen? What are
you doing in a cemetery?"
Rashi notes that there is an opinion that Eliyahu and Pinchas are one and
the same, based on the terminology of "kannaut" that is used in regards to
both of them.
See also the Zohar on parshat Vayishlach 128a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Constance Stillinger <cas@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 00:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Pigeon Treatment
Jonathan Greenfield <sdb@...> wrote:
> My brother told me that he scrutinized the whole process from several
> feet away and, other that the minimal firmness of grip you would have to
> maintain to keep the pigeon in place, observed no undue pressure or
> squeezing on the pigeons that could otherwise be attributed to their
> violent reaction and subsequent deaths. The pigeons that died were
> carefully placed into a bag to subsequently be burned. In both cases
> the patients felt some degree of immediate relief and were well enough
> to leave their sick beds within days.
Birds are extremely delicate and can be killed by surprisingly mild
circumstances. They can be killed just by freaking them out, for
example, consistent with the "violent reaction" said to be observed
here. Moreover, the placebo effect is a remarkably strong
phenomenon---give people sugar pills and tell them it's medicine, and
they will report relief from all sorts of ailments, which is why you
always include a placebo control group in evaluation studies.
Yup, we need randomized trials (double-blind would be great, but how do
you keep patient and practitioner blind in this case?) before concluding
that this treatment works.
Maybe it works, but let's keep the intellectual standard up, and let's
not be cruel to animals without some good reason.
Connie
Dr. Constance A. (Chana) Stillinger <cas@...>
EPGY, Stanford Univ. Morris's Mommy "Hoppa Reyaha Gamogam" (Lev. 19:18)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth Ness <ness@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Pigeon Treatment
On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, Jonathan Greenfield wrote:
> I had heard about this treatment many years ago while living in Israel.
> Although I have never witnessed the procedure myself I can describe the
> experience that my brother witnessed. He had the opportunity to view
> the process on 2 occasions both times for members of his Charedi
> community and both times accompanying his Rosh Yeshiva and others. My
> brother was **extremely** skeptical of the process until he witnessed it
> for himself from close up and he is now a believer.
If this is a legitimate test, then ther are thousands and thousand of
weird cures that people will be very happy to tell you about how they
saw them work, how miraculous they are etc.
> I also do not think that his Rosh Yeshiva, who is a greatly respected
> Talmid Chacham, would have participated in such a procedure if it did
> not have some root or acceptability in the Halachic world.
its acceptability is that that it is permissable to use amulets and other
semi-magical cures. It has nothing to do with whether it actually works,
other than placebo effect.
and i wonder what the Rosh Yeshiva would say if he knew the oldest record
of this treatment was in a christian sorcery book.
> In both cases the treatment was administered to patients suffering from
> Jaundice (Yellow Fever) rather than Hepatitis.
jaundice is a symptom. it can be present in both hepatitis and yellow fever.
I wonder how curing the jaundice would actually help someone with yellow
fever?
> My brother told me that he scrutinized the whole process from several
> feet away and, other that the minimal firmness of grip you would have to
> maintain to keep the pigeon in place, observed no undue pressure or
> squeezing on the pigeons that could otherwise be attributed to their
> violent reaction and subsequent deaths.
why do you think it requires great pressure to suffocate a pigeon? they
aren't meant to be held motionless, firmly in place. I would think that
could kill them. and a violent reaction would be more typical of
resistance to being held and suffocated than of bilirubin transfer.
Rosner mentions a case where some of the pigeons died and some did'nt.
Autopsies showed ruptured spleens, which can be caused be being held, not
by bilirubin transfer.
> In both cases the patients felt some degree of immediate relief and
> were well enough to leave their sick beds within days.
thats generally what happens these days in yellow fever. no surprise there.
And if someone believes in the pigeons, i'd certainly expect them to feel
some immediate relief,
> Now as for references from a Judaic source, I found one in a book called
> "Sefer Ta'amey Haminhagim U'Mekorey Hadinim" which (published by Eshkol
> in Jerusalem). While the beginning of the book list reasons for various
> minhagim (Jewish customs) the back of the book describes many rather
> unconventional remedies for a gamut of human ailments. For Jaundice it
> simply states and I'll loosely translate),
>
> "He shall take a male pigeon for a male and a female pigeon for a
> female, and shall seat it upon his navel, and the pigeon shall draw out
> all the jaundice to completion, and the pigeon will die. It has been
> checked. (Sefer Segulot Yisrael)"
I thought i mentioned this already. taamei haminhagim and segulot
yisrael refer back to divrei yitchchak from 1896. No earlier jewish
source has ever been found to my knowledge. Everbody always claims its
in the gemara or something and they can never back it up.
An identical treatment, except using a duck, is in a christian sorcery
book from 1801 though. This is the oldest source i ever heard. This does
not seem to be a jewish thing.
Seth L. Ness Ness Gadol Hayah Sham
<ness@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Mandin <jeff@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 18:40:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Question of Interest
Cheryl Steinberg wrote:
>If I borrow $5000 from a friend who actually took out a loan for the
>$5000 on a credit card at 8% interest and I pay the money (plus 8%
>interest) back to the credit card company directly, is this forbidden?
I think that this is forbidden - Bava Mezia 71a describes a case where
non-Jew A lends to Jew B, with A and B agreeing that when the loan comes
due he will go to collect the money with interest from Jew C.
The gemara there states that since the non-Jew intends to collect from
C, the initial loan is considered to be from A to C, and then there is
an implicit loan from C to B. If B pays interest, he is paying it on
the loan he took from the Jewish guarantor (ie. C).
>It is not my friend who is charging the interest, it 's VISA. I could
>actually say that I borrowed $5000+ at 0% interest. The "+" is the 8%
>interest VISA is charging. Is this any different? Is it different if I
>pay the money back to my friend or directly to the credit company? I
>rather borrow on my friend's VISA than my own because my VISA charges
>18.9%. interest.
Based on the above, since VISA will still send the bill to your friend
and consider your friend as the indebted one, halacha views your friend
as borrowing $5000 at interest and then lending it to you.
As always, CYLOR. Hope this helps/is interesting.
Jeff Mandin
Apertus Technologies Inc. New York City
212-279-1515 x342 <jmandin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <mrayman@...> (Mark Rayman)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 11:01:17 EDT
Subject: Question of Interest
Whenever a question like this comes up, we must precisely determine who
is the lender (malveh) and then determine who is the borrower from the
lender.
In this case VISA (or the bank) is the lender. The borrower is usually
defined as the party who has the primary legal obligation to repay the
loan. I'm afraid in this case, your friend is considered the borrower,
because if there is a default, VISA will go after him, not you.
So what is going on here is that your friend is borrowing money with
interest from VISA. Assuming that VISA or the bank are non-jews, this
is OK.
Then your friend is now lending you money with interest. If your friend
is Jewish, this probably violates the Biblical Prohibition on ribis
(interest).
It makes no difference it you send the money to VISA directly (See Yoreh
De'ah 168-169, about a jew lending a jew money on the condition that the
interest (or even principle) is to be payed to a non-jew).
A heter iska (a document which redefines the loan as some sort of
investment) may be appropriate in this case, see your LOR.
Moshe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 95 0:27:28 IDT
Subject: Yayin Nesech and Non-Religious Jews
Adina and I spent last week in the Golan. During the course of our trip
we took the tour of the Golan Winery, which as with most winery tours
included a "wine tasting" at the end. When we got to the wine tasting,
there was another fruhm couple on the trip and the "guide" offered that
as she was a "chilonit" (not religious) we may want to pour our own wine
before it is offered to others. We agreed, and the other husband opened
the first bottle and poured for everyone. When he couldn't open the
second bottle I did, but before I thought to start pouring the guide
took the (now opened) bottle from me. As a result, no one wanted to
drink the wine.
I would assume that this is some sort of extension of the rules of
"Yayin Nesech", a prohibition against drinking wine of the goyim ("stam
yaynom") in all cases (and not just in those cases in which the wine had
actually been produced for or poured for idol worship) which Chazal
imposed in order to discourage Jews from intermingling with non-Jews.
However, I have never seen sources for extending this prohibition to
non-religious Jews, and have been in many fine and upstanding fruhm
homes that for whatever reason happened to have non-religious Jews at
the table (here in Jerusalem it's actually quite common to have
non-religious tourists or students as guests at Shabbos meals) and did
not seem to be taking any special precautions to ensure that no
non-religious Jew touches the wine bottle once it is opened. Is there a
source in Halacha for extending the gzeira (decree) of yayin nesech to
non-religious Jews? Is this a chumra (an extra strictness) which some
people have taken upon themselves? Could it be that we no longer have a
chazaka (assumption) that everyone who claims to be Jewish actually is
and that as a result we treat non-religious Jews as goyim with respect
to yayin nesech?
-- Carl Sherer
Adina and Carl Sherer
You can reach us both at:
<adina@...>
[I believe that the Mishne Brura brings down the opinion that a Mechalel
Shabbat Befarhesia - public desecrator of Shabbat - is treated in a
similar manner as a non-Jew in relation to the laws of wine, and
therefore if they hold opened wine containers it may not be used. The
two basic questions that are raised with respect to this opinion that I
am aware of are 1) Is this a majority or minority opinion? and 2) does a
non-religious Jew today qualify as Mechalel Shabbat Befarhesia. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 21 Issue 6
