Volume 65 Number 33 
      Produced: Sun, 27 Mar 22 07:31:21 -0400

Subjects Discussed In This Issue:

Libi Omer Li 
    [Joel Rich]
Non-renewal of Kashrus supervision for non-Kashrus related reasons 
    [Michael Poppers]
Shabbos Invitations (was Has Reform Judaism failed?) 
    [Immanuel Burton]
Shechting an animal with two heads (2)
    [Martin Stern  Perets Mett]
The New Shtiebel Near Me 
    [Joseph Kaplan]
Zelensky, Putin and animal sacrrifice 
    [David Tzohar]


From: Joel Rich <joelirarich@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2022 at 03:17 AM
Subject: Libi Omer Li

Rabbi Asher Weiss often uses the phrase "Libi Omer Li (My heart tells me)" when
describing a position which is not based on concrete sources, especially when
it's due to new technology or circumstances. I"ve usually heard it referred to
as halachic intuition but I dont know anyone who seriously tries to dissect it.
If one looks outside the Yeshiva world they"ll find that this is a subject of
much study in the Academy. Here's one example :


The bottom line is intuition may be simply the subconscious accumulation of a
lifetime's worth of experiences.

My own footnote is that I believe it is on this basis that those who say anybody
who has seen anything outside the Torah world is not fit to be a posek because
their intuition has been affected by outside sources. Of course, I would argue
just the opposite but that's for another time.


Joel Rich


From: Michael Poppers <the65pops@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 25,2022 at 03:17 PM
Subject: Non-renewal of Kashrus supervision for non-Kashrus related reasons

Along the lines of a recent discussion (whether a Kashrus agency should end a
supervisory relationship/not renew a contract for reasons unrelated to Kashrus),
please note that the Va'ad HaRabanim (Rabbinical Council) of Bergen County (NJ,
USA) recently announced publicly it would not renew its supervision contracts
with two establishments owned by an individual just arrested regarding
allegations of sexual misconduct.  Details here:



From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2022 at 09:17 PM
Subject: Shabbos Invitations (was Has Reform Judaism failed?)

Professor Levine wrote (MJ 65#23):

> Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:99) was asked in 1953 by a Rav
> in Detroit as to whether it is permissible for him to encourage people to come
> to shul when he knows that those individuals live far from the synagogue and
> will drive to shul on Shabbat.  Rav Moshe strongly rejects doing so.  He argues
> that extending such an invitation constitutes a violation of the prohibition of
> Lifnei Iveir Lo Titein Michshol (Vayikra 19:14), placing a stumbling block
> before the blind.

The subject of inviting people for Shabbos if one knows they will drive is
discussed at length in chapter 7 of The Laws Of Outreach by Rabbi Abraham
Edelstein (Mosaica Press, 2019). The above ruling by Rav Moshe Feinstein is
discussed, and states the situation in which the question was asked was in a
community where Shabbos violators belonged to Orthodox shuls, and were people
who knew better. The parameter of kiruv (outreach) did not apply to the
situation in question, but that does not necessarily mean that the intention of
kiruv permits Shabbos invitations in all situations.

Immanuel Burton.


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 13,2022 at 01:17 PM
Subject: Shechting an animal with two heads

Avraham Friedenberg wrote (MJ 65#32):

> Somehow this came up for discussion on Shabbat. How would someone shecht a
> two headed lamb, or any two headed animal? Would it require a shochet on
> each side to cut simultaneously?

There is a general principle in hilchot treifot of "kol hayeter kenital dami
[any vital organ that is duplicated is as if it is missing]" Since an animal
with no head is a treifah, one with two heads is also treifah and so there
is no purpose in shechting it. Therefore there are no halachic requirements
for performing such a shechitah.

Martin Stern

From: Perets Mett <pmett99@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 15,2022 at 02:17 PM
Subject: Shechting an animal with two heads

In response to Avraham Friedenberg (MJ 65#32):

A two-headed animal is surely a treifa, so why shecht it?

Perets Mett


From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 14,2022 at 06:17 PM
Subject: The New Shtiebel Near Me

Prof. L. Levine tells us (MJ 65#32) about a new shteibel near him, talks about
its extensive renovations, describes how it was built, its decor, its davening
and its kiddush, and asks "What should one think of such a Kiddush? I wouldn't
presume to tell those who daven in that shteibel what to think about its kiddush
or anything else concerning their shteibel. For those of us like me who do not
daven there (which is probably most or all of MJ's readership), I"d suggest that
if we have enough time to think about a shul's kiddush (or its renovations,
decor, or davening), let's spend that time thinking about our own shul and its
activities and how we can improve it/them to reflect as best we can our
understanding of keddushat beit knesset and Shabbat. 



From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2022 at 01:17 PM
Subject: Zelensky, Putin and animal sacrrifice

In "Torah Tidbits" (issue 460 parashat tzav) Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks ZTZL
wrote a brilliant article on one of the most difficult and misunderstood Torah
subjects: the relevance of animal sacrifice to mankind in the 21st century. He
presents a cogent well thought out thesis; breathtaking in its original thought
and almost Maimonidean in scope. While it obviously doesn't answer all the
questions it offers a lot of food for thought. I say this even though I place
myself closer to the mystical end of the emunah spectrum and this article is
closer to the Litvish side with a little Lubavitcher ambience. Definitely closer
to the "Rov" than HaRav (Kook) both ZTZL. What is most amazing is how it
explains the present Slavic war in a prescient, almost prophetic way.

I will try to summarize the article as succinctly as possible but I really hope
everyone will read the original article. BTW there are some other interesting
articles in this issue by Rabbis Shalom Rosner, Aaron Goldscheider, Judah
Misschel and Moshe Taragin all SHLiTa. Torah Tidbits in spite of the kitschy
name is really a tzohar for the light of OU in Israel (please excuse the
personal reference).

R' Sacks bases himself on a commentary of R' Yosef Albo ZTZL (Sefer HaIkkarim,
Spain, early 15th century). Albo begins with two questions:

1 Why did Hashem permit eating meat after the Flood when originally neither man
nor beast were meat eaters?

2 Why did Hashem reject Cain's offering, the first meat sacrifice?

Albo believed that killing animals for meat was inherently wrong. (See also
HaRav Kook on vegetarianism in "Ma'AMRei HaRAYaH") since it involves taking the
life of a sentient being to satisfy our corporeal needs. Cain understood this
and believed in a strong kinship between men and animals. Albo after much
ruminating comes to the conclusion that Cain killed Abel as a human sacrifice
(!) since ultimately there is no moral difference between killing humans and
animals. That is why Hashem permitted eating meat after the flood.

Fast forward to the AKeiDaH for the tikkun. Before the flood the world was "full
of violence" which was an inherent part of human nature. So Hashem said let
humans kill animals rather than human beings - the one creation that was formed
in His image and was a receptacle for His divinity. It is of course well known
that some of history's worst murderers were animal lovers and even vegetarians.
Hence the sequence of verses after the flood which, after accepting the ReiACH
NiCHoaCH of the animal sacrifices, goes on to absolutely outlaw the murder of
humans "whoever sheds the blood of Man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in
the image of G-d has G-d made humanity".

According to Albo, Noach offers an animal sacrifice in thanksgiving for
surviving the flood. G-d sees that human beings need this way of expressing
themselves. Sacrifices are a substitute for violence directed at humans. The
ultimate example is the scapegoat where all sins are transferred to the
sacrifice. Society can take revenge on the sacrifice in place of the human sinners.

>From here R' Sacks takes the discussion to the societal level where the
Montagues exact revenge from the Capulets, and the Capulets from the Montagues
and Romeo and Juliet become the sacrifices. The same is true of the French
taking revenge on the Germans and the Germans on the French. And of course the
Christian Church which rejected animal sacrifice taking revenge on the "Christ
Killers" although here we haven't responded in kind. In Judaism animal sacrifice
took the place of the never ending cycle of violent revenge. The chief moral
obstacle in the path of reconciliation is the desire for revenge.

There are modern social philosophers like Fukayama who thought that after the
two world wars of the 20th century and even more so after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the history of a nation taking revenge on another nation was over.
There would be no more ideologically driven wars. 

HALLEVAI! iNSTEAD THE 21ST CENTURY has seen endless ethnic violence in the
Balkans, the Middle East and Africa. This alongside a resurgent Muslim world
that promises to take revenge on the entire world and will sacrifice every last
unbeliever just as yemach shemo wanted to sacrifice every last Jew.

And now we are witnessing in Eastern Europe the newest chapter in ethnic
violence. Putin wants to avenge the "persecuted Russophones in Ukraine and
Zelensky wants to avenge the "Russian invaders" In the meantime the West lead by
Biden is giving Iran the ultimate tools for their plan of genocidal
revenge.(Fortunately we already have those tools may G-d grant that we won't
have to use them)

R'Sacks concludes by saying that violence is still part of human nature and most
dangerous combined with revenge on the national level. We must find ways of
redirecting it so that it doesn't claim more human sacrifices. The only ultimate
alternative to sacrifices,animal or human is the one propounded 2500 years ago
by the prophet Amos: I will not accept your offerings "But let justice flow like
a river And righteousness like a never failing stream" (Amos 5:23-24)

David Tzohar


End of Volume 65 Issue 33