Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 068

Friday, May 28 1999

• Re: Loshon Horo - Wives
• Re: electricity
• Voting in Israeli Elections
• [none]
• Re: calendar and coins
• Re: Voting in Israeli Elections
• Re: Removing a Dybbuk
• Electicity
• Overturning Minhog
• Re: Lshon Hara - Miriam
• Re: Heating Metal
• Halacha by consensus (was:Electricity)
• Re: Heating metal
• Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in Metzius
• Re: Removing a Dybbuk
• RE: Heating metal
• Re: Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in Metzius
• 13 Ikkarim - Inadvertent Disbelief
• Avodah Zarah
• Kiddush in shul
• Re: Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in Metzius
• Re: Removing a Dybbuk
• Re: Avodah Zarah
• Re: Loshon Horo - Wives

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> I know many may not agree with this, but as an attorney, my wife
> NEVER shares 
> with me attorny-client confidences,
> And as a Rav I NEVER share with her clergy type confidences.
> 
I think that one can differentiate between confidences (where the
confider expects complete confidentiality) and merely sharing
experiences ("my boss berated me today, what should I do?").

> I consider loshon horo as equally inappropriate.  If do share a
> story,  I do my 
> best to change the names, etc. so as not to point to any
> individual.
> 

Certainly, if you can change the names, ma tov u'ma na'im.  But what
if I only have one boss?  Or, if I have many bosses, but each has his
own personality?

> As far as husband wife intimacy goes, See Avos 1:5 - Al Tarbe
> Sicho... b'ishot 
> omru...
> 

I don't believe that this applies to intimate conversations with
one's wife.  It's supposed to discourage frivolous, unnecessary
conversation.  On the contrary, I believe that the psychological
intimacy that comes from sharing one's innermost thoughts with one's
wife may be some kiyum of onah (which technically refers to physical
intimacy).

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 1999, Claude Schochet wrote:
> 
> > Lest we conclude that all poskim in the past generations were
> machmir, I
> > would cite a p'sak by the Orach Hashulchan to the effect that the
> use of
> > electricity on chag is permitted. (This was quoted in the Jewish
> Press
> > halacha column some years ago- I have a photocopy packed away in
> > Michigan...)
> > 
> 
> Generally chalked up to misunderstanding of the nature of
> electricity.
> 

Could someone please elaborate on the misunderstanding?

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Rabbi Clark wrote: 

<<< However, the official position of the Edah ha-Haredit is that no one
should vote in an election for a secular government in Eretz Yisrael.  I
presume the rationale is that partipation in an election constitutes
mesaye'a li-yedei ovrei averah, on the assumption that the existence of a
secular government in EY is sinful and voting somehow facilitates that
sin. >>>

The explanation I heard, for that point of view, was not that voting
facilitates the sin of others, but worse: It is a personal sin, because
by voting one is personally participating in that government.

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

I'm glad to see Akiva Miller is back (still?) with us; it gives me a chance
to settle some unfinished business.

Last year, around shavuos, there was a discussion of yibum/geulah. During
this exchange, I wrote an inexcusably harsh post to the list in reply to a
comment Akiva made.

Since Akiva was with the list as recently as 5 minutes ago, I beg from him,
in this forum, forgiveness for my comments of just more than a year ago.

Good Shabbos,

Avi Pechman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth G Miller [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 1:44 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Voting in Israeli Elections
> 
 
> Akiva Miller
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at 
> http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 
> 654-JUNO [654-5866]
> 

In v3n66, Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes:
:            This implies that Acherim disagree with the principle that
:    only witnesses decide on the new month.

I thought we believed that witnesses are required for the process of kiddush
hachodesh, but do not necessarily determine when the month begins. We already
discussed the period in our history where the months were computed, but eidim
still went to the lishkas hagazis. Why is Acheirim's position any different?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In a message dated 5/28/99 1:48:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

<< Rabbi Clark wrote: 
 
 <<< However, the official position of the Edah ha-Haredit is that no one
 should vote in an election for a secular government in Eretz Yisrael.  I
 presume the rationale is that partipation in an election constitutes
 mesaye'a li-yedei ovrei averah, on the assumption that the existence of a
 secular government in EY is sinful and voting somehow facilitates that
 sin. >>>
 
 The explanation I heard, for that point of view, was not that voting
 facilitates the sin of others, but worse: It is a personal sin, because
 by voting one is personally participating in that government.
 
 Akiva Miller >>
Assumedly the issur of participating is that it grants the government 
legitimacy? If so wouldn't taking government funds be in the same category?

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

In v3n66, Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:                                                    I'm sure that most
: scientists--in this day and age--do not believe that neshamot exist
: outside of bodies and believe instead that what people refer to as
: the "soul" is just part of the brain.

First, I'm not as sure that most scientists are non-religious.

Second, the soul wouldn't be part of the brain, but rather a process the
brain runs. R' Aryeh Kaplan (in the first collection of his essays) suggests
something similar. And, since it's encoded as a pattern that happens to be
implemented in a brain, there's no reason that pattern can't exist without
the chomer.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

RYGB:>>
Claude Schochet wrote:

> Lest we conclude that all poskim in the past generations were machmir, I 
> would cite a p'sak by the Orach Hashulchan to the effect that the use of 
> electricity on chag is permitted. (This was quoted in the Jewish Press
> halacha column some years ago- I have a photocopy packed away in 
> Michigan...)

Generally chalked up to misunderstanding of the nature of electricity.<< 

Also, I would say that 100 years ago, the issue was still being debated, IOW 
there was no consenus at THAT time, but there is now.  So even if you prove that
Oruch Hashulchan was an electical mr. wizard, I would still say that the 
consensus has overruled him by now.

I guess that begs the question is, even if there is a consesnus so what?! 
<smile>

Rich Wolpoe

Our esteemed moderator Micha:>> I still think that willingness of the
Gaon, R' Moshe Feinstein and R' YB Soloveitchik to switch from three matzos to
two argues that there are cases where minhog avos can be overruled. (And we're
talking about what they did l'ma'aseh. You can't dismiss it as "theoretical
discussion only".)<

Granted. Question: What percentage of these 2 geonim's talmidim use 2 matzos 
instead of 3?

Rich Wolpoe

<<
Indeed, the Maase Miriam involved only close siblings, Yet we are still 
warned 
about Loshon horo even amongst a very close family.  Lich'ora wives, too.
>>

While Miriam (and Aharon) spoke out against Moshe, the Torah does not say in 
front of whom they spoke.  I always understood the story as being said in 
front of other, non-family, members of Klal Yisrael.

EDT

<<
"I seem to recall that the Rambam's halacha with regard to heating
metal is that "bishul" in the case of metal is defined as heating it
until it glows. "
>>

See Rambam Shabbos 12:1, where he defines heating metal in order to harden it 
as mav'ir.  Also see Ra'avad there who asks why it isn't m'vashel.

EDT

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Also, I would say that 100 years ago, the issue was still being
> debated, IOW 
> there was no consenus at THAT time, but there is now.  So even if
> you prove that
> Oruch Hashulchan was an electical mr. wizard, I would still say
> that the 
> consensus has overruled him by now.
> 
> I guess that begs the question is, even if there is a consesnus so
> what?! 

In the time of the Sahedrin, a vote by the Sanhedrin settled the
halacha; a member of the Sanhedrin who refused to accept that would
be a zaken mamre.  Today, if a posek disagrees with the consensus of
the other poskim, I would think that he--and his talmidim--may
maintain his position.  BTW, I have been told by someone in the know
that certain gedolim during the past couple of decades used to turn
lights on and off on Yom Tov.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

I can understand how heating metal until it glows could be considered hav'arah.

In a flame, molecules of gas absorb energy from the heat, thereby raising
the electrons to "higher orbits" (i.e. quantum states that embody greater
quantities of energy). The electrons then fall back to lower states by
releasing that energy as light.

Hot metal glows for the same reason, except that it's a solid whose atoms
are getting heated.

If you take a more experiential and less scientific approach, then glowing
metal isn't a flame, but it is a change of the state of the metal caused by
raising its temperature to above yad soledes. Sounds like bishul to me.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Exteemd Moderator Micha>>
My hypothesis in that debate would actually lead one to conclude that evidence
/does/ overrule p'sak. I argued that minhag has authority to choose between
two "right" shitos, i.e. in a case of "eilu va'eilu". However, one could
overrule minhag if it were found that the shitah we follow is in error.

For example, R' Kook addresses the question of abiogenesis. Maggots found
within the meat are considered kosher by Chazal because they are born of
the meet. According to R' Kook, the p'sak is wrong, and they are treif.
Lekulah, though, we can't rely on evidence. Not because the evidence hasn't
the authority, but because we can't be sure we ruled out every cause of the
issur.<<

OK, could one make the same statement re: gender specific principles in the 
Talmud?
Let's take one: tav lemeesisav tan du melemsiav armelo?
IOW, the very fact taht the Rav aruges to suport Tan du, (as cited by K. Dvaid 
Bleich's article in Tradition contra-Rackman) presuposes that one could argue 
the contrary, That indeed this principle of metizust is no longer applicable 
bizman hazeh, Or perhaps from a more extreme y feminsit standpoint a to'us by 
chauvinistic men who had a condescedning mis-understanding towards women in 
those days, and that the metizus as described by Chazal was never correctly 
observed in the first place; implying that we mightrevise this principle EVEN 
under Orthodox auspices?

I think Rackman has said this and been attacked.  If the gemoro erred legabei 
maggots, did it err legabei females? 

Rich Wolpoe

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Second, the soul wouldn't be part of the brain, but rather a
> process the
> brain runs. R' Aryeh Kaplan (in the first collection of his essays)
> suggests
> something similar. And, since it's encoded as a pattern that
> happens to be
> implemented in a brain, there's no reason that pattern can't exist
> without
> the chomer.
> 

First, I would think that R. Aryeh Kaplan's position is a minority
position among Jewish philosophers or m'kubalim and that the majority
of them believe that the soul is an entity separate from the body and
not merely a brain pattern.

Second, even according to R. Kaplan, I would think that once a soul
has departed from the body, the soul has some independent existence;
if so, it is possible that it should be able to enter someone else's
body and "take over" its brain.  

My point is not that I necessarily believe in dybbuks, but I don't
see why they should be hashkafically problematic (other than the
issue that one would think that Hashem would prefer an orderly world
rather than one full of magic and superstition).

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: micha@aishdas.org [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 2:57 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: Heating metal
> 
> 
> I can understand how heating metal until it glows could be 
> considered hav'arah.
> 
> In a flame, molecules of gas absorb energy from the heat, 
> thereby raising
> the electrons to "higher orbits" (i.e. quantum states that 
> embody greater
> quantities of energy). The electrons then fall back to lower states by
> releasing that energy as light.
> 
> Hot metal glows for the same reason, except that it's a solid 
> whose atoms
> are getting heated.
> 
> If you take a more experiential and less scientific approach, 
> then glowing
> metal isn't a flame, but it is a change of the state of the 
> metal caused by
> raising its temperature to above yad soledes. Sounds like 
> bishul to me.
> 

Related to this, see igros moshe yoreh deah siman 75 where he allows
lighting a match on yom tov from an electric burner, provided the burner is
glowing, because at that point the metal has a halachic status of fire.

> -mi
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: 
> Shishi, Nasso
> micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
> O"Ch 321:12-18
> http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah
> 

In a message dated 5/28/99 3:01:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 OK, could one make the same statement re: gender specific principles in the 
 Talmud?
 Let's take one: tav lemeesisav tan du melemsiav armelo?
 IOW, the very fact taht the Rav aruges to suport Tan du, (as cited by K. 
Dvaid 
 Bleich's article in Tradition contra-Rackman) presuposes that one could 
argue 
 the contrary, That indeed this principle of metizust is no longer applicable 
 bizman hazeh, Or perhaps from a more extreme y feminsit standpoint a to'us 
by 
 chauvinistic men who had a condescedning mis-understanding towards women in 
 those days, and that the metizus as described by Chazal was never correctly 
 observed in the first place; implying that we mightrevise this principle 
EVEN 
 under Orthodox auspices?
 
 I think Rackman has said this and been attacked.  If the gemoro erred 
legabei 
 maggots, did it err legabei females? 
 
 Rich Wolpoe
  >>
The Rav(YBSoloveitchik) said in a taped shiur that Tan du  was part of the 
briah and not subject to change.

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

Mindful of our esteemed listowner's reminder that philosophy is an
appropriate topic:

I had written:
>> Rambam's clearest statement on the issue appears in the Moreh I:36 near
>> the end, where he writes: If you think one can be melamed zekhut on

RYGB wrote:

>The Rambam there simply says there is no excuse ("hitnatzlus") for those
>who believe in hagshama - he does not state anything about their Olam
>Ha'Ba.

Really?  In my version, he goes on to such a person is a kofer.

Me:

>> Similarly, the famous hasagah of the Ra'avad on this issue indicates
>> that he read Rambam this way.

RYGB:
>Ra'avad's are made to farenfer - the famous R' Chaim ad loc cit comes to
>mind...

Perhaps.  But others agree with this reading, including the Tashbetz in
Ohev Mishpat and Abravanel in Rosh Amanah.

R. Joel Rich asks:

>One of the girls shot was reported to have been asked whether she believed in
>god.  She responded affirmatively and was shot to death.

>If she had been Jewish and all the other requirements were met, would this
>have been a case of yehareg vall yaavor(ie is this avodat zara)?  Assuming
>yes, what if she could have just remained silent?

Rambam addresses this in his Igeret ha-Shemad, where he explains that
insincere declarations are theologically meaningless.  Dr. Haym
Soloveitchik wrote an intriguing analysis of this argument in an article
published in the RJH Lookstein Memorial Volume.

Shabbat shalom,

Eli Clark

Joel Rich asks:

From a historical viewpoint, does anyone know when this minhag(or takkana)
>began?

At least from the time of the Gemara.  See Pesahim 100b.

Shabbat shalom,

Eli Clark

Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
:                                                   If the gemoro erred legabei 
: maggots, did it err legabei females? 

My criterion for change (which I am not asserting, I just have yet to hear
a better proposal) is that one can prove that the shitah that became minhag
Yisrael is b'ta'us. Not that you can find a proof for the other shitah, since
we aren't insisting the other shitah is less correct, just not the derech
we chose. Also, I'm not insisting that discrediting a proof or a rationale
is sufficient. It must be proof of not-A.

That's a much easier thing to do in the harder sciences than in psychology.

Also, I should state clearly something I only implied earlier, that we appear
to follow the Gr"a that multiple reasons exist for each issur/chiyuv, and
therefore we lack the power to create heteirim in this way.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes:
: First, I would think that R. Aryeh Kaplan's position is a minority
: position among Jewish philosophers or m'kubalim and that the majority
: of them believe that the soul is an entity separate from the body and
: not merely a brain pattern.

No, he says it's a pattern, information (which he doesn't mean in the
technical sense). We find a similar idea in the Rambam, who in the Moreh
calls mal'achim "sichliyim nivdalim" and in the Yad calls them "tzurah b'li
chomer". Implied is that the seichel is a kind of pure form without substance.

IOW, I think your problem is that you assume that a form that may or may not
be married to substance is worth a "merely".

This form might be given to an object, but the seichel itself is the form,
not the object that happens to embody it. I really recommend you read the
essay, R' Kaplan well documents his position.

-mi

PS: Brings a whole new meaning to Olam haEmes. It's not just a world where
truth reigns, it's a world composed entirely of truths.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

This is tangential to the discussion, but I think that in the ma'aseh shehayah
the girl was going to be killed regardless of her answer to the question. In
which case, even her hypothetical Jewish counterpart should answer "yes", as
there's nothing to be gained by lying, but affirming the borei is a pretty
holy way to die.

-mi

PS: My apologies to Israelis reading my .signature.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Rich Wolpoe raised the subject of "al tarbeh sichah... b'ishto amru..."

It reminds me of a d'var Torah. Perhaps, like my last look at tephillah,
someone will find a flaw -- or perhaps a confirmation.

According to Hirsch, the mishnah is talking about light frivolous conversation.
I took this to mean flirting.

Which brings a whole new meaning to "lasu'ach basadeh". It casts Yitzchak's
relationship to HKBH in a very Shir haShirim-esque light. Add to that that
the av most associate with avodah is named Yitzchak, and we are told that
Avimelech sees him "mitzachek es Rivkah ishto".

Then we have the Chassidim haRishonim, who went to the fields and greeted
the Shabbos Bride, a practice that later expanded to include such things
as Shir haShirim, Yedid Nefesh and Licha Dodi.

Flirting with G-d...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-May-99: Shishi, Nasso
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 321:12-18
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 87a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]