Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 003

Tuesday, September 14 1999

• age of a gadol
• Re: Pre-Midnight Selichos - Ramblings
• Information on Hamodia
• Re: Yomim Noraim Liturgy - G'mar Chasima Tovah
• Chazaras Hashztz at Mincha
• Pre-Midnight Selichos...
• Re: lower criticism
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• More questions about Selichos
• Re: More questions about Selichos
• re: Yomim Noraim Liturgy - Ramblings
• Psak
• Blanket Mechilah
• Calendar Request
• Rashi on Maseches Taanis
• RH candleliting;RH shalosh seudah
• Statistics
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• Back to Hendel's fan

Carl writes

<< I was referring to modern times. Nearly all our gdolim today are
<< senior citizens before they are recognized as gdolim.

Two of the gedolim of the present day Agudah are Rav Chaim Kanevsky
and Rav Steinman. I am not sure how old they are but they are
not senior citizens (Rav Kanevsky is a son-in-law of Rav Eliyashiv
and so a generation younger - of course he is also the son of the Steipler).

Also Rav Ovadiah Yosef was considered a gadol at least by sefardim for
many years.

I dont think we have gedolim like the Ramban who wrote major works at
the age of 17 but thet are not all in retirement age. Also if I remember,
the first seforim of Chazon Ish and the Steipler appeared when they were
not that old.

KCT
Eli Turkel

Rich Wolpoe asks <<< 1) What is the precise Halachic problem in saying
Selichos prior to Midnight?   2) Is saying Selichos prior to midnight any
bigger an avla than ... >>>

Rav Moshe discusses these exact questions in Igros Moshe Orach Chaim
2:105. The precise Halachic problem, as I understand it from there, is
that prior to midnight is not considered an "ays ratzon". He writes (d.h.
"ach") <<< However, if it is a case where from midnight onward is
impossible, and that tzibur would otherwise not say slichos at all, one
can allow it as a "horaas shaah"... >>> See there for a deeper
explanation.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Hamodia is an Israeli newspaper begun by the Ger Hasidim (actually a good 
time ago).  In recent years, it has been seen in some circles as a chareidi 
substitute for Yated (and certain political overtones in the latter paper 
which should probably not be discussed on this list and definitely not 
during this time period).  Incidentally, has anybody seen the signs floating 
around Brooklyn (among other places) about Rav Shach assuring electric 
shavers?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

One of Rich Wolpoe's questions came up at a se'udas b'ris last night
(post-Tzom Gedaliah). The local menaheil offered an answer based on part of
the Gra on "Lishana tovah tikaseivu".

: 2) We refrain from saying Kesivo vaChasimo Tova after RH and switch to Gmar 
: Chasimo Tova.  Yet in the tefillos, we say kosveinu up until ne'ilo and only 
: then change to chosmeinu.

In tefillah, we're referring to our own judgement. In the greeting we're
speaking of someone else's.

You don't really want to imply to someone that the k'sivah they got on R"H
needs amendation. Therefore, when speaking to someone else after R"H but before
the final chasimah, you speak only of that chasimah. However, when speaking to
HKBH about our own judgement of course we ask for Him to improve R"H's chasivah.

On another question:
: 5) If the Shevorim-Teruoh combination is considered one of 3 possible forms
: of Teruoh, how come it is counted as 2 notes each legabei 100 and not as 1
: note each?

Isn't this one of the ra'ayos for the shitah that the ba'al tokei'ah takes a
breath between the shivarim and the teru'ah of a shevarim-teru'ah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Sep-99: Shelishi, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 24

Does anyone know of any "hard" halachik authority (such as a
published t'shuva by a recognized posek) for the practice
commonly known as "haycha kedusha," in which chazaras hashatz of
Mincha is omitted in the absence of any circumstances that might
constitute sha'as hadchak (e.g., to avoid missing z'man t'fila or
to avoid brochos l'vatolo when there are not at least 9 men who
will listen and answer amayn to the brochos of the shatz),
and the sh'liach tzibur instead recites the first 3 brochos,
including kedusha, aloud before t'fila b'lachash? Also, in recent
history (as opposed to the more ancient practices mentioned by
Bais Yosef in simanim 124 and 234), was this practice followed in
European Yeshivos or is it, as I have heard, an innovation of
American Torah institutions? What possible halachik justification
exists for the apparent abrogation of a takanas chazal in this
manner?  The halachik literature on the subject that I have examined uniformly
disapproves the practice, absent extenuating
circumstances. See, for example, Rav Ovadia's teshuva in Yechaveh
Da'as 3:16, and sources cited therein. I am not really interested
in ma'aseh rav on the subject and, until someone comes up with a
real halachik justification, I think we should avoid publicizing
the fact that particular rabbanim engaged in what seems like
p'rikas ole.

RYGB wrote:
>> ...continue to proliferate at ever greater rates with ever less
>> embarassement and ever more publicity each year. A sign of the times. >> Sad.

>> YGB

Though the Rebbe of Berditchev would probably have turned his eyes
heavenwards and said "Yisroel am kedoishim! just finished celebrating
the holy Shabes day and still they cannot wait to start saying
selichos".



A gmar chasime toyve to all of you,

Dovid Herskovic

In v3n207, RRW <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes in response to me:
:> The biggest problem I have with critical techniques is that they are based 
:> on the presumption that d'rashah and remez were not given simulataneously 
:> with the text.

: ====> Understood.  But according to the mystical model, such subsequent 
: deviations might have been part of the original divine plan.

I think Russell Hendel's <rjhendel@juno.com> bewilderment explains what I was
trying to say.

It's not that belief in lower criticism would shake my belief in d'rashah.
I have a problem with just asking the question. Only someone who doesn't
believe in the Sinaitic origins of d'rashah and remez would even wonder why
it once says "De'uel" instead.

Second, there's a problem using the mystical model to justify d'rashah. Perek
Cheilek requires us to believe that every single d'rashah is miSinai. This
would mean that the text as used in the d'rashah must have been d'rashah-worthy
since Sinai as well.

Of course, identifying what is d'rashah and what is asmachta is non-trivial. As
minimal criteria, if it justifies a d'Rabbanan, it's an asmachta. Also, we can
assume that if the gemara has a shakla v'tarya requiring each side to use the
d'rashos of the other, those d'rashos must be miSinai. (With the possible
exception of a final d'rashah which is "ein l'Rabbi X".)

:                       There are indeed many drushos misiani and many that are 
: not!

I'd have used different language, something more like "There are indeed many
d'rushos miSinai and many *asmachtos* that are not!"

:> Halachically, once something is resolved al pi rov, it is as mandatory as a 
:> vada'us. Therefore, even without being able to identify every case of MvC...
:> if we can establish either a ruba di'isa likaman (rov sifrei Torah with a 
:> chezkas kashrus say X) or a ruba dileisa likaman (text X is more probable) 
:> we have a halachic standard to maintain. 

This was a suggested understanding of R' Yosef (who asserted that we aren't
beki'im in malei vichaseir and yet also held lihalachah that an improper malei
or chaseir would pasul). I was not intending to present it as my position, as
I don't really have one yet.

FWIW, the kind of shakla vitarya I mention above justifies a position I took
in email with a number of chaveirim on this list. Cheilek's claim that all
d'rashos are miSinai appears not to require believing that the mapping from
d'rashah to a particular conclusion is.

Which takes us back to my other possible explanation of R' Yosef, that he
insists that the text we have is the same as Moshe Rabbeinu's, and the "lo
beki'in" is in knowing how to use MvC to reach conclusions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Sep-99: Shelishi, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 24

> I would say there's a non-linear relationship because of the concept of
> (relative) da'as Torah. Part of learning isn't just knowing, but also
> developing a particular mode of thought. Which is true for any discpline,
> but even more so in one which is about improving the self, including the mind.

In v3n207 Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:
:                           1) Power to reward and punish 2) inherent authority
: such as divine right of kings/Sanhedrin/Navi.
: Today authority tends to be 3) a function of knowledge.

Are we speaking about authority in potential, or having an actual following?
IOW, I can see there being greater authoritativeness to someone who really
learned and internalized much Torah. It imparts reliability to his words.
However, if he doesn't gain a following, his opinions will have minimal impact
on the development of halachah.

I was thinking more of the former. Your comparison to #1 and #2 lead me to
believe you're discussing the latter. Similarly, Carl Sherer's remarks about
the typical age of an acknowledged gadol, and mine about the greater likelihood
that a R"Y obtains such acknowledgement, are about the latter as well.

: There however is an another type of authority which seems more dependent
: upon how the person is perceived by others rather than a simple measure of
: his knowledge.
....
: How do I know whether a person has achieved the status of ba'al mesora? Simply
: by observing whether he is quoted as authoritative only because of his
: knowledge or because he is viewed as living Torah. Rav Moshe's pronouncements
: on hashkofa are not as articulate and erudite as Rabbi Kaplan but they are
: Daas Torah because Rav Moshe said them which is not true of Rabbi Kaplan's
: pronouncements.

To my mind, charisma is entirely about pragmatic authority, not the
authoritativeness of his views. I'm not sure there's importance to pragmatic
authority outside of halachah. I agree that in the case of halachah,
carismatic following and the power of rov go hand-in-hand. But by aggadita
(determining what is true as opposed to what is halachah) we don't necessarily
say azlinan basar ruba.

To put it another way: a gadol bihalachah not only knows more halachah, but
also further developed his da'as to be that of Torah in this and related
modes of thought. However, authority as a poseik also includes issues of
public acceptance (charisma), and therefore the greater gadol (even gedulah
bihalachah) is not necessarily the more authoritative poseik.

:     As Rav Chaim Shmuelevtiz noted - Yehoshua did not become Moshe Rabbeinu's
: heir because he was the greatest lomdan or posek - but rather because he was
: most capable of expressing Torah to his generation.

Who defines "his generation"? R' Aryeh Kaplan didn't give the frum velt its
wetenschaung, but you would be hard pressed to find someone who better
explained Torah to the Jewish population as a whole.

I think the issue comes up because you're still picturing a gadol as one
of the few key poskim of the generation. Therefore we look at the numbers
of Adas Yisrael -- the frum world -- to see who they follow and determine
halachic authority. My questioning the whole subject of public acceptance
in this domain

Jumping back a bit:
:                                         The Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a
: gadol in psak or learning but in tzidkas.

Totally tangential: I find this an odd thing to say about the author of a
halachah seifer as widely accepted as the Mishnah B'rurah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Sep-99: Shelishi, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 24

People have been asking questions about Selichos (is it better to.... than..., etc.), and I'd like to add one:

We're familiar with the complexity of the selichos.  In that vein:

Is it better to
(A) say all the piyutim with low comprehension;
(B) say one or two with high comprehension;
(C) same as (A), but be sure to include certain selichos?

Sholem Berger

Same question may apply to Kinnos.

We do option "c" in the minyonim in which I participate.

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Sholem Berger wrote:

> Is it better to
> (A) say all the piyutim with low comprehension;
> (B) say one or two with high comprehension;
> (C) same as (A), but be sure to include certain selichos?
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Rich Wolpoe asks <<< We refrain from saying Kesivo vaChasimo Tova after
RH and switch to Gmar Chasimo Tova.  Yet in the tefillos, we say kosveinu
up until ne'ilo and only then change to chosmeinu. >>>

Here's my wild guess: The difference is who we are talking about.
Regarding our friends, we are Dan L'kaf Z'chus that they were written in
the Sefer Chayim on Rosh Hashana, so we can immediately begin wishing
them G'mar Chasima Tovah. For ourselves, however, we dare not make such
presumptions, and consider ourselves as Beinonim for the entire ten days,
until the very last minute.

Now let me add my question to the pile: In "Areshes S'fasenu", why do we
refer to the sound of "tekiAseynu", in the singular? Wouldn't it make
more sense to refer to the "tekiOseynu", the shofar blasts, in the
plural?

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Chana writes "The matter is further complicated by the fact that, unable
to cope with
open house, naturally such people end up being protected by others who
will only let certain questions through, and may only return certain
answers.  And in some cases that means that the question goes through
half a dozen people before it arrives at the gadol in question.  For
sure all of the particular circumstances of the questioner and the
question get lost in such situations, not to mention that the answer may
not be relayed accurately."
You make several very good points in your post and I wholeheartedly agree
with every single point.  I just wanted to add one more dimension to your
words.  You seemed to be concentrating on individuals asking shaalos
relevant to their personal circumstances, what about when there are
community shaalos?
Often a community has an important question, and some members of the
community turn to a gadol from a far away community (most often - Eretz
Yisrael) for guidance.  In my limited experience in this area, the Israeli
gadol from Bnei Brak has a very very hard time (sometimes, in my opinion
it is impossible) understanding what a community in the far reaches of the
United States really needs.  I know that I am raising the ire of the
proponents of "daas Torah" of our chashuva group, but I am only extending
the point that you were making.
What is really necessary in these situations, is that representatives of
the various factions must all present their sides of the issue in detail
and in person, as you wrote in your post, 
before the gadol so that he can truly come to the best possible
understanding of the situation.  Unfortuneately this is not always what
happens.  I also submit, and I know that we've discussed the extent of
daas Torah many times before on this list, that some issues are
often understood more by one gadol over another.
Shaul weinreb
 

Russell Hendel has asked about the effectiveness of blanket mechilah.
This is something I've wondered about as well, and I'd like to offer my
thoughts on it.

1) D'varim shebalev aynam d'varim. If "You are mekudeshes al t'nai that I
am a tzadik" works, then blanket mechilah surely works. Whether I
actually forgave him or not is irrelevant from *his* perspective. I have
told the Bais Din Shel Maalah to take that aveirah off of his records,
and that's all that really matters to him. Personally, I might get an
aveirah for my continued grudge, but that does not make the mechilah any
less effective.

2) Suppose I refuse to be mochel him. If he would come to me three times,
he has done his chiyuv, and he does not need anything else from me
despite my refusal. Blanket mechilah is surely at least as good as that.

3) Maybe I did not forget that thing he did to me. And it still bothers
me, and I wish he would come to me to apologize for that specific act.
Let's go further, and say that I happen to know that he did it
deliberately, and did it repeatedly, and has no intention of apologizing.
I still feel that there is an important value to a blanket mechilah, and
that is because of what I have done repeatedly to Hashem. I know that
there are things which I've stumbled over in the past, and will continue
to be weak in, even after Yom Kippur is over. My aytzah is to sincerely
grant a blanket mechilah to everyone. I ask Hashem not to punish anyone
on my account, and I pray that Mida K'neged Mida, I will similarly escape
punishment. It may sound like a legal fiction, but I believe that
according to the sincerity, so will go the effectiveness.

I got the idea for the above aytzah from several places, most notably
from the Blanket Mechilah paragraph in the Tefilas Zakkah for Erev Yom
Kippur. However, I have noted that the text of the Tefilas Zakkah
specifically excludes forgiving "those who sinned against me, saying that
'I'll sin and he'll forgive me.'" I have been omitting that exclusion,
and I welcome discussion on if I might be wrong for it.

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Shalom

I'm a french (frum) citizen and I request your help. I'm a regular
contributor at a french jewish weekly bulletin of my Bes Haknesses (soon
on the Web) and we want to put the yartzeits of Hazal week after week.

When I was in Israel on holidays the previous years, I saw an hebrew
calendar with, day by day, the date of Yartzeits of the Rabbonim who
died on each day.

Do you know what mean ? do you know how can I get it ? or you have the
faw number of the editor for the year 5760.

Thank you by advance.

Shlomo Ouaknine
Paris - France

>Isn't Ta'anis one of the mesechtos in which they say Rashi isn't Rashi?

The Shem HaGedolim cites this opinion which is mentioned in Sefer Mishneh Lechem, but disagrees with it.

Yisrael Herczeg

I'm looking for the source for the following 2 questions-------------    1]
chiyuv  of shalosh seudos on shabbat RH

 
2]the source of lehadlik ner shel yom hazikaron- do any jews other than
chabad use that nusach?
 

 
when did that minhag start?
kol tuv and gmar tov

> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:23:44 -0400 (EDT)
> From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
> Subject: Administrivia: Statistics for volume 3

> Volume 3 contained:
> 207 digests = 1.18 per day = 1.71 per chol
> 3033 emails = 17.23 per day = 25 per chol
> 
> We currently have 262 members altogether (digest: 19, individual: 
> 243).
> 130 chaveirim contributed.
> 90% of the emails were written by 44 people,
> 80% by 26 people,
> 50% by 7 people,
> 22% by two people (!).
 
	I think that, relative to some other lists,  50% contributors vs.lurkers
is pretty good.  The predominance of certain posters may be related to
several long drawn out threads to which some other posters either chose
not to contribute or felt out of their depth.  Any stats on length of
discussion (or size of posts) on any one topic relative to previous
volumes?

Gershon

Micha Berger wrote:

> Are we speaking about authority in potential, or having an actual following?
> IOW, I can see there being greater authoritativeness to someone who really
> learned and internalized much Torah. It imparts reliability to his words.
> However, if he doesn't gain a following, his opinions will have minimal impact
> on the development of halachah.
>
> I was thinking more of the former. Your comparison to #1 and #2 lead me to
> believe you're discussing the latter. ...
>
> : How do I know whether a person has achieved the status of ba'al mesora? Simply
> : by observing whether he is quoted as authoritative only because of his
> : knowledge or because he is viewed as living Torah. Rav Moshe's pronouncements :
> on hashkofa are not as articulate and erudite as Rabbi Kaplan but they are : Daas
> Torah because Rav Moshe said them which is not true of Rabbi Kaplan's :
> pronouncements.
>
> To my mind, charisma is entirely about pragmatic authority, not the
> authoritativeness of his views. I'm not sure there's importance to pragmatic
> authority outside of halachah. I agree that in the case of halachah,
> carismatic following and the power of rov go hand-in-hand. But by aggadita
> (determining what is true as opposed to what is halachah) we don't necessarily
> say azlinan basar ruba.

I find it very strange to hear somebody being described as authoritative who is not
viewed as an authority. Such a person is knowledgeable  not authoritative. My point
has been that authority is dependent upon being accepted as such [not so much by the
masses but  by peers]. There is no difference whether we are talking about halacha,
agada or lehavdil -  psychology.

> :     As Rav Chaim Shmuelevtiz noted - Yehoshua did not become Moshe Rabbeinu's :
> heir because he was the greatest lomdan or posek - but rather because he was :
> most capable of expressing Torah to his generation.
>
> Who defines "his generation"? R' Aryeh Kaplan didn't give the frum velt its
> wetenschaung, but you would be hard pressed to find someone who better
> explained Torah to the Jewish population as a whole.

This is the same point. Being knowledgeable, erudite, articulate etc. does not make
a person a gadol for that generation. It does not make him one of the baalei
mesorah. You are talking about potential. I am talking about authority as real and
actualized. If the voice has no audience it makes no sound. If the message is not
transmitted it is not relevant. Rav Aaron Kotler once explained why the Rambam
states that if a person could give a hesped and doesn't he deserves to be buried
alive. He said it is simply mida kneged mida. A person's influence [and thus
spiritual growth] continues after death - but only if people talk about him or
transmit his influence to others. By not giving the hesped - you are deny others the
opportunity  to be influenced by the niftar. Cutting off anothers influence is
equivalent to burying him alive.

> I think the issue comes up because you're still picturing a gadol as one
> of the few key poskim of the generation. Therefore we look at the numbers
> of Adas Yisrael -- the frum world -- to see who they follow and determine
> halachic authority. My questioning the whole subject of public acceptance
> in this domain

Again - the issue is not limited to halacha.

> Jumping back a bit:
> :                                         The Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a
> : gadol in psak or learning but in tzidkas.
>
> Totally tangential: I find this an odd thing to say about the author of a
> halachah seifer as widely accepted as the Mishnah B'rurah.
>

The historical fact is that the Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a posek or gadol in
learning during his lifetime. He was viewed as the tzadik hador. The current status
of the Mishna Berura was established after world war II. A friend of mine told me
that his grandfather learned in Radin and the main halacha work there was the Aruch
HaShulchan. Rabbi Heineman told me that his rebbe Rav Aaron Kotler used to carry a
mishna berura around to give status to the sefer. It seems that with others such as
the Chazon Ish the status of the Mishna Berura as the basis of halacha was
established  after the war.  Rabbi Winter told me that Rav Hutner told him that the
Chofetz Chaim was not considered a major lomdin in his life time. Rav Chaim Ozer
said in his hesped that the Chofetz Chaim's tzidkus was so great that his gadlus in
learning was not noticed. Rav Henkin is reported to have stated on the Chofetz Chaim
that the tzadik hador can not be the posek hador - the middos are not compatible.
In sum - the way the Chofetz Chaim is viewed today is not the way he was viewed
in his life time.

This is not tangential - it is an illustration of my point. . The Mishna Berura was
not a major halacha sefer in his life time. Nevertheless the Chofetz Chaim was
viewed as a major influence in his time as to defining what Yiddishkeit should be.
His influence today is also a major influence but it now also involves his halachic
authority and his lomdus e.g., the biur halacha.

The Gra seems to have been in a similar situation. In his life time he was not
considered the final authority in halacha. In fact - even in Vilna he did not
determine the halacha. For example he tried to reinstitute Birchas Cohanim during
the week and ended up in jail. Rav Moshe states (Igros Moshe vol 8 #24.6 page 78
"The position of the Gra [tefilin chol hamoed] was not accepted by all. Not even in
his own city and they were not makpid on it. the reason seems to be that the minhag
is not altered just because the Gra was much greater. We see that the minhag takes
precedent..." [SEE also Igros Moshe vol 8 #18.26 page 200.] I was told that one of
the purposes of the Mishna Berura was to make the Gra to be more main stream.  Rabbi
Rakefet told me that when he came to Israel - the halachic positions of the Chazon
Ish were commonly referred to as the Chumros of the Chazon Ish - and were widely
ignored. The Chazon Ish was a gadol for reasons other than his status as a posek.

A gadol is not a potential influence but actual influence. I once asked one of my
clients who had spent his life being a nebach - what was worse. To be a plain nebach
like he was or to be a person with high ability but not actualize it by influencing
others. After thinking for 10 seconds he said "I'd rather be a plain nebach. Can you
imagine how much agony a rebbe goes through when he has no chassidim or the
chassidim don't accept him. Do you know what it is to be a great lomdin - who is
ignored? A brilliant teacher who has no students?" [BTW this insight greatly helped
his self esteem. It helps to know that others have it worse]

Chazal tells us that Choni HaMagel was such a person. After sleeping 70 years - he
was given kavod but ignored. He had no one to communicate with. He was now living in
the wrong century. His response - either I have chavrusa i.e. reciprocal influence
on others - or I want to die. And he died. Rabbi Eliezar HaGadol was also a person
of great ability that lost touch with his generation - he was put in Cherem and was
denied all influence. Finally the medrashim about Moshe Rabbeinu indicate that when
he ceased to have influence on his generation - he died.

In sum. A gadol without authority and influence is an oxymoron. There is no
authority in the abstract. However, the nature of that authority can change over
time and does not inherently involve being a posek Furthermore he might not be a
gadol in the next generation. On the other hand a person can become  a gadol
posthumously e.g., the Ramchal. Rav Moshe Feinstein apparently was viewed more as a
tzadik than a gadol here in Israel during his lifetime. It was only after his death
that the Igros Moshe became popular and influential here.


                             Daniel Eidensohn

R"RJHendel writes

>I thank David Bannett for his posting--BUT HE DIDN"T ANSWER
>MY MAIN QUESTION which is

>If we throw away from electricity, fire, light, circuit completion, is
>there any issur Torah.

>In particular if I remove a shield that runs a hand held solar operated
>small fan (no problem of sparks) is it Mootar.

Sorry, I thought I did answer. Perhaps my trying to write in a way that
avoids anyone thinking that I am making halakhic decisions caused some lack
of clarity.

I'm certain I wrote this clearly before, but here goes again: If the issur
being considered is one of creative activity, i.e., molid, tikkun kli
and/or boneh, we are not talking necessarily of fire or light. We could
be considering circuit completion because that is what sometimes makes or
completes the creative act, in Hendel's example changing a "dead" fan into a
"living" fan. The important concept is the creativity of the act and it is
immaterial whether the result was caused by completing an electrical circuit
or by other means, mechanical, chemical, electrical or what have you.

Molid is a tolada of tikkun and so mid'rabbanan. Tikkun and Boneh are
mid'oraita. So, pick your issur.

There remains the question of responsibility for the creative act you have
chosen, above. The original Hendel fan was moved into the sun and I wrote about
one being responsible for kiruv davar el ha-esh where the result is immediate.

Hendel's new fan, quoted above, is now being operated by removing a blockage.
I wrote before in some detail about removing the preventer, koach rishon
and sheni and the differentiation between koach sheni and koach kocho. Whle
k. sheni is grama, k. kocho is usually considered a ma'aseh especially if
the chain of events is continuous, the result immediate, and the result
stops immediately when the energy source is blocked.

As to the "small" fan, is this an attempt to minimize the complexity? I wrote
about my series of questions to Harav LY Halperin and the determination of
the point where using existing elements becomes changed to creating a davar
chadash. I don't think size of the fan is a factor in this decision. In any
event, RLYH made it quite definite that having electrical current go into
a motor and bring the fan to life was "beyond the limits" while the water
operated device I described was "in the vicinity of the border".

I leave for RRJH or others to go into the question of responsibility
for continued fan operation after the sunlight has, perhaps, become koach
sheni. Does sunlight ever become koach sheni? (I think Micha Berger touched
on this recently) And is electrical current a continuous flow or a series of
small units (electrons? Remember the mosquitoes that caused death.) And then,
can we compare nezikin with Shabbat?

Except for the previous paragraph, I hope I succeeded this time to make
things a bit clearer.

G'mar Hatima tova to all,

David

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


[ 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         ]