Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 373

Thursday, February 17 2000

• Re: Query: Long term contracts
• Re: Fw: Modulating Electric/Electronic Current
• Re: Fw: Modulating Electric/Electronic Current
• Lizman Hazeh
• Re: Fw: Modulating Electric/Electronic Current
• Re[4]: diyukim
• Re[4]: diyukim
• Re: anu v'amru
• [none]
• diyukim
• diyukim
• diyukim
• re: Yisgadel
• Lashon Hara Issue
• Re: Re[4]: diyukim
• [none]
• Torah and Science / Dr. Shapiro and the SE - Friends or Foes?
• Re: Torah and Science / Dr. Shapiro and the SE - Friends or Foes?

In a message dated 2/16/00 10:06:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> It is, if I recall correctly, in the Shut Chasam Sofer, and pertains to
>  rabbinic contracts, so it is probably in the CM volume.
>  
>  Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
>  Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
>  http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
>  
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Berger <rachelbe@netvision.net.il>
>  To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
>  Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 8:35 AM
>  Subject: Query: Long term contracts
>  
>  
>  > I seem to recall shuti"m on the issue of signing a contract longer than
>  six
>  > years, the limit stemming from the Halachos of Eved Ivri, and one's
>  > inability to "enslave" oneself to an employer for longer than that 
period.
>  > Does anyone have references to such an idea?
>  >
>  > Shalom Berger
>  
See C"M 333:3 Ramoh Shach 17, and Klei Nosi'm The Chasam Sofer RYGB refers to 
is found in the Chidushei Chasam Sofer it is also found in his Tshuvos C"M  # 
171 and explanation in # 172.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On 16 Feb 00, at 19:49, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
> To: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 1:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Modulating Electric/Electronic Current
> 
> 
> > "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yet I believe (I will be chided for my laziness here, but it is from
> memory)
> > > that R' Moshe, as most other Poskim, is mattir, in the final analysis,
> > > speaking directly to a person wearing a hearing aid. I am cc'ing RDE so
> he
> > > may confirm or deny this from his far superior knowledge of R' Moshe's
> > > perspectives.
> >
> > Take a look at O.H. IV #84 &85. The first dealing with a P.A. system and
> the
> > second with a hearing aid. He concludes in #85 "...the cheresh in whose
> ear the
> > device is placed does not do any melacha and the problem  concerns the one
> who
> > speaks. Furthermore those who do not speak directly to the cheresh but in
> > general and therefore they have no intent [for the activation of the hear
> aid]
> > and so it is mutar. Furthermore this is not a psik reisha because there
> are many
> > times that even with the hearing aid the cheresh does not listen. Only
> those who
> > speak directly to the cheresh does he pay attention to and also many times
> when
> > he is spoken to directly  he listens and it is also a psik reisha and even
> if it
> > weren't the intent makes it prohibited. Therefore when it is possible it
> is best
> > not to speak directly to him...and on those things that he asks the reply
> should
> > be by gestures and not by speech. And if it is impossible in this manner
> in this
> > case of a 6 year old girl and it is necessary to reply to her
> andoccasionally by
> > speech - it is not prohibited."

Practical question (and I actually had this happen a couple of years 
ago). I have a Shabbos guest who is hearing impaired. In order to 
be able to hear, she (even if only by force of habit) tries to stand 
directly in front of me when I am speaking to her so that she can lip 
read in addition to using the hearing aid. But there is no doubt that 
I am speaking to her and she is making the effort to listen. And she 
is not six years old - she is an adult. 

Until the last paragraph on that tshuva, I would have thought it 
mutar to speak directly to her. But based on the last paragraph 
(which, for those who do not have the sefer, is the one RDE 
translated for us), I would say that speaking directly to an adult 
with a hearing aid is a psik raisha d'nicha lei (and maybe even no 
longer a davar sheaino miskaven), which may not be a tzorech 
gadol, and therefore R. Moshe would hold that it is assur. Or am I 
reading too much into the tshuva?

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 2/16/00 11:49:23 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< I would say that speaking directly to an adult 
 with a hearing aid is a psik raisha d'nicha lei (and maybe even no 
 longer a davar sheaino miskaven), which may not be a tzorech 
 gadol, and therefore R. Moshe would hold that it is assur. Or am I 
 reading too much into the tshuva? >>

What is the rule on the use of implanted electric pacemakers on Shabbos? What 
about high-tech artificial limbs, that are partially activated by electrical 
impulses generated transmitted through nerve cells (and amplified by 
batteries)? 

David Finch

RYGB writes <<< The MB writes that the proper nusach for the brocho of
She'hechiyanu is (as is Nusah Ari) "L'zman Ha'zeh". The "Olam" continues
to say as in the Siddur (and, of course, who can argue on the
Roedelheim?) "La'zman." >>>

R' Sadya Targum asks <<< Is it l'zman, with a shva? ... If it's lizman,
there is still a dikduk problem, because if there is a hei hayidiyah for
hazeh, there must be its equivalent for zman as well (i.e., lazman, not
lizman).  For instance, you can't say b'sefer hazeh. It's either b'sefer
zeh or basefer hazeh. >>>

It is "lizman", with a chirik. See Magen Avraham 676:hakdamah, Elya
Rabbah 676:1, Mishnah Brurah 676:1, Aruch Hashulchan 676:3. I did not
notice any explanations, but they clearly say to put a chirik on the
lamed.

Question: Would the chirik meet the "hei hayidiyah" requirement? If a
patach is the definite article, and a sh'va is the indefinite article,
how would one translate a chirik, anyway?

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

I think the velt follows the psakim of RSZA in these matters and conducts
itself to speak directly to individuals with hearing aids (of all ages) on
Shabbos, Such, at least, has been my personal experience.

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

> Practical question (and I actually had this happen a couple of years
> ago). I have a Shabbos guest who is hearing impaired. In order to
> be able to hear, she (even if only by force of habit) tries to stand
> directly in front of me when I am speaking to her so that she can lip
> read in addition to using the hearing aid. But there is no doubt that
> I am speaking to her and she is making the effort to listen. And she
> is not six years old - she is an adult.
>
> Until the last paragraph on that tshuva, I would have thought it
> mutar to speak directly to her. But based on the last paragraph
> (which, for those who do not have the sefer, is the one RDE
> translated for us), I would say that speaking directly to an adult
> with a hearing aid is a psik raisha d'nicha lei (and maybe even no
> longer a davar sheaino miskaven), which may not be a tzorech
> gadol, and therefore R. Moshe would hold that it is assur. Or am I
> reading too much into the tshuva?
>
> -- Carl
>
>
> Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
> Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
> Thank you very much.
>
> Carl and Adina Sherer
> mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
>

Isn't this the path to a "personality" cult?  

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: diyukim 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/15/2000 11:10 PM


On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:35:31 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<I think this gets back to WHO says it vs. WHAT is said. The Gro 
speculates a change, that's ok. Birnbaum - whose major opus is after his 
siddur/machzor - speculates a change it's not ok.  Taht is despite the 
fact that this was his fild of expertise. Sounds arbitrary to me.>>

	YOU are getting to it;  I started there.  You have stated it very well: 
the Gra's suggestions, coming from the closest we had in the last few 
hundred years to a malach Elokim,  are OK.  Birnbaum,  nu nu.  Exactly 
right,  it's who,  not what.

Gershon

Iim kein...

How come we pasken against R. eliever ben Hyrkanos dspite a bas Kol supporting 
him?

How come Ahskenazim ignore the Beis Yosef and folowthe Rama?  din't the Beis 
Yioseif havea maggid as a chavruso?

How can anyone then argue on the Gro? How come we don't drop all the other 
minhagim and not follow the Gro?

Who annulled the Gro's cheirem?

How can people still practice Chassidism?


Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

	YOU are getting to it;  I started there.  You have stated it very well: 
the Gra's suggestions, coming from the closest we had in the last few 
hundred years to a malach Elokim,  are OK.  Birnbaum,  nu nu.  Exactly 
right,  it's who,  not what.

Gershon

In Avodah 4#372, MBerger replied:
> You are assuming the two "match up"? Why? Maybe we have
"anu" where they don't, and their "patzu feh vi'amru" is an elaborate form
of our vi'amru. (In which case, we would have a comma where they wouldn't.)
Perhaps the only reason why both appear in the same place is because they
serve the same role in the rhythm, not the meaning of the pasuk.  Or,
perhaps the whole reason WHY we differ is because our nusach feels there
ought to be a verb for "zeh Keili" and the other doesn't. It might even be
related to our usage of a quote from the Shirah, which creates a need to
say that they said this quote. IOW, we could have a different text because
there ought NOT to be a match. <
B'raishis siddur hat'fila, the authors of these passages
were m'sadair *one* girsa.  Granted, due to
scribal/transmission error and/or various intents,
different girsa'os for a given passage were noted;
on the whole, however, these differing girsa'os
essentially parallel one another (i.e. in general,
we *compare* them) while differing in certain
aspects (i.e. in specific, we note *contrasts*).
Your points are well-taken, but I feel
they're not likely, given the above axiom;
to put it another way, I see no reason
to contrast when one can compare.
We've mentioned one example where
the contrast is inevitable ("uvin'imah k'doshah"
vs. "uvin'imah, k'dushah"), but why insist
on contrasting "potzu feh v'o'm'ru" with
"onu v'o'm'ru" when one can compare the two?
> I'm still unclear on how this technique (better than "system"?) can
produce decisions. Questions, yes. Conclusions -- I'm still unclear.
However, seeing how long it took me to grasp the other part of this
conversation (see below)
that shouldn't be surprising. <
I concur with you that conclusions are
far harder to draw than questions, but I think
the above-mentioned technique (yes, I like
that word better!) is what I was implying all along:
if you agree with the axiom, I think the results
are logical; if we still disagree as to conclusion, so be it.
> I thought we were now on a deeper issue: Need the text be parsable and
translatable? You were saying that even if "anu vi'amru" together had no
translation (a "what if") situation, we should still say them together.
What we're saying has to make sense. If there were no translation of the
sentence with the comma removed, I couldn't be comfortable removing the
comma. <
I've been trying to say that you shouldn't put
the translation cart before the p'shat horse.
There *is* [more than one] translation when
you don't break "onu v'o'm'ru" up -- as I mentioned
in one post, take a look through RavSRH on D'vorim
to see what I mean re all the "onu v'o'm'ru"
references -- but it's more important to understand
the intent of the author(s) in using such a phrase
& accept that, as an idiom, it shouldn't be broken up,
then, to the best of your ability, understand the meaning.
> There are those who place the yesodos and Kavvanos (cap. K -- in the
kabbalistic sense; if you don't understand it, I'm not sure how you can be
mekhavein to it) first. <
Again, I disagree: even if you don't understand it,
you can be m'chavain to it.  In our case, however,
I don't see why you have had so much trouble
understanding "zeh Kaili..." without breaking the idiom up.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:34:08 -0500
From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
Subject: diyukim

<<How does the Baal Torah Temina explain that in Beitzah 17a it also says
"mekadesh Yisroel vehazmanim"?>>

	I don't know.  Let's ask him when we see him at techiyas hameisim, 
IY"H.  Until then, mar'eh makom ani lach.

Gershon

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:01:56 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Isn't this the path to a "personality" cult? >>

	I don't think recognizing the gadlus of the Gra is equivalent to
starting a personality cult with him as the center.  From what I've
read/heard,  he wasn't all that charismatic,  anyway <g>.

Gershon 

Date: Wed,  16 Feb 2000 16:34 +0200
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: diyukim

<<Guttenberg invented the printing press in 1436; the Avudraham, a talmid
of the Baal HaTurim, lived around the same time period (he was a
contemporary of the RAN). So one can not assume that it was the Avudraham
rather than Xtian printers of the Bible who divided Sefer Shmuel into
two books, who first indicated that SH"B was *shabbat* rather than
*shmuel bet*.>>

	Maybe I did not make it clear:  the Avudraham was the one who said that
you should say magdil on weekdays and migdol on Shabbos and Yom Tov.  To
the best of my recollection   (I apologize,  but I wrote the quote from
Rav Dovid Cohen from memory;  if it remains unclear I'll look it up or
ask him)    he did not refer to Shmuel I & II.

	If your point is that the division into two books was contemporaneous
with the Avudraham,  it still would not explain why the any printer would
abbreviate Sh"B as Shmuel Beis and assume that anyone literate enough to
bentsch would automatically know what he meant.  Jews would not have,  in
the main,  been familiar with just-emerging technology (the printing
press) and certainly not of Christian editions of the Bible.

Gershon

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:11:45 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<How come we pasken against R. eliever ben Hyrkanos dspite a bas Kol
supporting 
him?>>

	I thought the Gemara explained that it was because lo baShamaim hi. 
What does this have to do with the gadlus of the Gra,  or,  for that
matter,  Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkanos?   Rabbi EBH's halachic arguments
were not accepted by his contemporaries,  who were competent to judge
whether they should be halacha or not. His arguments from koslei beis
hamedrash etc. were deemed inadmissible as evidence,  so to speak,  not
wrong.
 
<<How come Ahskenazim ignore the Beis Yosef and folowthe Rama?  din't the
Beis 
Yioseif havea maggid as a chavruso?>>

	Similar question,  same answer.  BTW we do NOT ignore the Beis Yosef, we
pasken like him except in a machlokes with the Rama.   Why do you keep
bringing in lo bashamayim hi?  Am I missing something here?

<<How can anyone then argue on the Gro? How come we don't drop all the
other minhagim and not follow the Gro?
 
Who annulled the Gro's cheirem?>>

	As we often do,  we have reached the point in this argument where you
need to restate it to poor ole me in words of one syllable.  What are you
talking about?

<<how can people still practice Chassidism?>>

	That's an easy one:  the Chasidim never accepted the cherem!

Gershon

I believe that the deciding issue to pronounce the words Yisgadeil
Ve'Yiskadeish is that the word GDL is never aramaic.  The proper
translation for Gadol is Rabba.  This is what led the GRA to conclude
that the two first words were meant to be said in Hebrew.  I recall
reading this in the Artscroll "Kaddish", but may be mistaken...

Raffy
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Would someone on the list please help me locate marei mekomos, probably
in the "Chofetz Chaim", though other sources are fine, for the issue of
the permissibility of speaking loshon hara to let off some steam; as well
as the permissibility of listening to the lashon hara so that the speaker
will feel better.  

I would appreciate a private response since I receive Avodah in digest
form and don't want to wait so long.

Thank you
Raffy Davidovich
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

In a message dated 2/17/00 9:03:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Isn't this the path to a "personality" cult?  

Doesn't the Gemara say and brought in Rambam (Hil. T"T 4:1) that Im Horav 
Domeh Lmalach Hashem...

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

www.jofaconference.org      see the agenda of the jewish 'femenists'
conference.  including the many non-halachic voices appearing , including
topics like single motherhood by choice...    also excellent article in
jewish week   on  women's minyans  in queens....

There has been a lot of heated discussion about the
Sridei Eish (SE) and where his true Hashkafos lie. I
have stayed out of the discussion because of my
relative ignorance of the man.  Further I have not
read Dr. Marc Shapiro's book nor the SE letters
referred to in the many posts on the subject and,
therefore, do not feel qualified to comment directly
on the issue.  The question has arisen, however, as to
whether an individual with a high degree of integrity
such as Dr. Shapiro is qualified to characterize the
Hashkafic views of a Gadol such as the SE, if he
maintains somewhat marginal views of events written
about in the Torah, such as the Mabul.  I have been
forwarded some posts of Dr. Shapiro's from 1994
published in MailJewish wherein he describes the Mabul
(flood) as allegorical.  While I would defend Dr.
Shapiro's right to hold such views... I would still
drink his wine :)  I think one can safely say that his
views are "slightly" out of the mainstream of belief. 
I do not believe that there is a single Rishon or even
Acharon of any stature who ascribes to this view,
including the SE. 

So, again the question, can we trust a person, even
one who literally ate slept and breathed the SE for a
large portion of his life but whose very strong
beliefs are at odds with mainstream beliefs,
especially if (as I am told) the letters which were
written in private and apparently were never meant to
see the light of day,  paint a negative picture of a
Gadol?

Now,  just so that everyone knows where I am coming
from, I am a strong proponent of Torah U'Maddah and a
firm believer in science and the scientific method. 
Because of the most recent scientific evidence I
believe that the world is more than 6000 years old, 
probably 15 billion years old. I further believe
(because of massive scientific evidence -  although
not conclusive) in the evolutionary process as the
origin of the species in a G-d directed way,  much the
same way as does Dr. Gerald Schroeder. There is a lot
of evidence in Casual, Rishonim and Achronim to
support that view. Furthermore, I strongly believe we
should not "paint ourselves into a corner" by adhering
to populist religious beliefs, such as...  the world
is only 6000 years old, in the face of hard evidence
to the contrary.  To me, saying the universe was
created to look old is nothing more than either
ignorance or apologetics. 

I think Dr. Shapiro would probably agree with the
above paragraph.  Were someone to bring me conclusive
PROOF that the Mabul was only allegorical and never
actually happened (something that is highly unlikely
in that you would have to prove a negative) I would
have to re-think my own position.  But it is his
insistence that the Mabul must be allegorical because
the rest of academia and it's intelligentsia do so
based on their notions of scientific evidence without
any regard to a Torah Hashkafa,  makes Dr. Shapiro
somewhat suspect.  This is not to cast aspersions on
Dr. Shapiro.  Any biographer has his natural biases
and brings them wittingly or unwittingly to his work. 
But it is likely that his portrayal of  an individual
like the SE is done in a way compatible with his own
Hashkafa, even though,  given his integrity,  I don't
think he would do so intentionally.  There is
virtually no such thing as objective history.

I would like to believe that the SE was a Torah
U'Madanik.  Perhaps he was but I'd like to see more
universality on the subject.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Correction:

The word "Casual" in the third paragraph should read
"Chazal"  It was a spellcheck error on my part. 
Obviously, I did NOT mean Casual, Rishonim. 

I re-post the corrected version below. Sorry for the
inconvience:


There has been a lot of heated discussion about the
Sridei Eish (SE) and where his true Hashkafos lie. I
have stayed out of the discussion because of my
relative ignorance of the man.  Further I have not
read Dr. Marc Shapiro's book nor the SE letters
referred to in the many posts on the subject and,
therefore, do not feel qualified to comment directly
on the issue.  The question has arisen, however, as to
whether an individual with a high degree of integrity
such as Dr. Shapiro is qualified to characterize the
Hashkafic views of a Gadol such as the SE, if he
maintains somewhat marginal views of events written
about in the Torah, such as the Mabul.  I have been
forwarded some posts of Dr. Shapiro's from 1994
published in MailJewish wherein he describes the Mabul
(flood) as allegorical.  While I would defend Dr.
Shapiro's right to hold such views... I would still
drink his wine :)  I think one can safely say that his
views are "slightly" out of the mainstream of belief. 
I do not believe that there is a single Rishon or even
Acharon of any stature who ascribes to this view,
including the SE. 

So, again the question, can we trust a person, even
one who literally ate slept and breathed the SE for a
large portion of his life but whose very strong
beliefs are at odds with mainstream beliefs,
especially if (as I am told) the letters which were
written in private and apparently were never meant to
see the light of day,  paint a negative picture of a
Gadol?

Now,  just so that everyone knows where I am coming
from, I am a strong proponent of Torah U'Maddah and a
firm believer in science and the scientific method. 
Because of the most recent scientific evidence I
believe that the world is more than 6000 years old, 
probably 15 billion years old. I further believe
(because of massive scientific evidence -  although
not conclusive) in the evolutionary process as the
origin of the species in a G-d directed way,  much the
same way as does Dr. Gerald Schroeder. There is a lot
of evidence in Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim to
support that view. Furthermore, I strongly believe we
should not "paint ourselves into a corner" by adhering
to populist religious beliefs, such as...  the world
is only 6000 years old, in the face of hard evidence
to the contrary.  To me, saying the universe was
created to look old is nothing more than either
ignorance or apologetics. 

I think Dr. Shapiro would probably agree with the
above paragraph.  Were someone to bring me conclusive
PROOF that the Mabul was only allegorical and never
actually happened (something that is highly unlikely
in that you would have to prove a negative) I would
have to re-think my own position.  But it is his
insistence that the Mabul must be allegorical because
the rest of academia and it's intelligentsia do so
based on their notions of scientific evidence without
any regard to a Torah Hashkafa,  makes Dr. Shapiro
somewhat suspect.  This is not to cast aspersions on
Dr. Shapiro.  Any biographer has his natural biases
and brings them wittingly or unwittingly to his work. 
But it is likely that his portrayal of  an individual
like the SE is done in a way compatible with his own
Hashkafa, even though,  given his integrity,  I don't
think he would do so intentionally.  There is
virtually no such thing as objective history.

I would like to believe that the SE was a Torah
U'Madanik.  Perhaps he was but I'd like to see more
universality on the subject.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

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


[ 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         ]