Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 105

Sunday, August 20 2000

• Re: weddings in a bet knesset(orthodox)
• RE: Pesik Raisha
• RE: Pesik Raisha
• Boneh/Boney Yerushalaim
• weddings in a bet knesset(orthodox)
• Re: Boneh/Boney Yerushalaim
• Vayanchoh Vyaruvechoh...
• FW: Pesik Raisha

>Is anyone aware of a tshuva holding this to be improper?  I seem to remember 
> once hearing of this

There is an article about this in one of the early RJJ journals.  Weddings in 
shuls started in the 18th century as an imitation of Christian weddings and were
therefore forbidden because of chukas hagoyim.  I think R. Moshe Feinstein has a
teshuvah forbidding it also.

Gil Student

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> How do you define separate actions? RAI suggested looking at the probability
> of pulling each hair individually. What about the fact that the comb runs
> through many hairs simultaneously? Or that one does many brush strokes in a
> single toch kedei dibbur? I think that for each toch kedai dibbur the
> probability of 

I don't think that RAI was relying on looking at each hair individually.
Rather, he was looking at each brush stroke individually (certainly, that's
what I heard R. Schachter say).

As to the issue of toch kedei dibbur: If you were brushing fast and furious,
I might agree that your brush strokes should be amalgamated. But if you
brush slowly, pausing a bit between brush strokes, I would think that each
stroke would be considered a separate *decision* (meleches machsheves).

In any case, it depends on your hair. If I am brushing slowly and use one
of the more modern plastic bristle brushes with space between the bristles,
I don't think that I necessarily pull out hair during a period of toch
k'dei dibbur. My wife, OTOH, definitely would.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> How do you define separate actions? RAI suggested looking at the probability
> of pulling each hair individually.

I had in mind that each brush stroke was a separate action, not pulling each
individual hair.  


RAR states:
> An important heter based on the fact that you count each action separately
> is in regard to electric eyes.

This post raises the issue as to what is the difference between (i) the
case of an amalgamation of individual actions which together yield a PR
but each individually is not a PR, and (ii) the din of safek pesik reisha.
In a case of safek psik reisha (e.g., you do not remember whether you forgot
to turn off the light in the refrigerator), the Taz is meikal and the BH
treats it according to ordinary klalei hasafek -- where the underlying issur
is deoraysa - lechumra, and where derababnan - lekula.

Perhaps the Taz is the basis for the kula of RSZA quoted in SSK regarding
walking across a lawn where grasses will inevitably be removed.

KT,
Shimon (Andre) Isaacson

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> "Ashrei ha'ish asher lo HALACH" - why is it in past tense and not present?
> Rabbi Mordechai Cohen, professor of Bible at YU, told me that there is no
> present tense in biblical Hebrew.

Holeich tomim ufo'eil tzedek vedoveir emes bilevavo (by the same author <g>)

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Is anyone aware of a tshuva holding this to be improper?  I seem to remember
> once hearing of this

	This, along with bima be'emtza,  goes back to the fight against Reform,
when they instituted this practice to imitate the church.

	AFAIK,  this is rarely practiced nowadays,  and the fight against
Reform has gone on to bigger issues,  leda'avonenu.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 12:38:35PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
:> Rabbi Mordechai Cohen, professor of Bible at YU, told me that there is no
:> present tense in biblical Hebrew.

: Holeich tomim ufo'eil tzedek vedoveir emes bilevavo (by the same author <g>)

"One who walks in whole-purity and one who does righteousness and one who speaks
truth in his heart". Where's the verb that is belashon hoveh?

The point of this linguistic chiddush is not that Hebrew has no way to say
things belashon hoveh, but rather that the means to do so is to utilize nouns.
Which is why "boneh" which means "builder" is also used for "he is building".

-mi

2 nice Pshotim on the Parsha -

Vayancho *Varuvecho* - Vayachilcho es Hamon...
Q:   Why were they hungry if they had the Mon?

1) From the 3rd Belzer Rebbe (RYD) zt'l - ...The Gemoro states that the
Mon arrived for Tzaddikim right on their doorstep, whilst for Reshoim -
it fell far away and they had to go and "collect" it.

Now that was fine and well for openly known Reshoim, but what about those
people who presented themselves as Tzadikim - but were b'emess Reshoim -
their Mon also didn't arrive at their homes - of course - and they had to
go and collect it.

However, they, not wishing to reveal their true faces, by joining the other
Reshoim to pick up their portion - preferred to stay home and remain hungry....

So because of Vayachilcho es Hamon - Vayaruvecho...

A second pshat I heard from our Rov shlit'a ... via a Maaseh about one of
the Tzaddikim (IIRC the Rebbe Reb Zushe zt'l) who was an Oni V'Evyon Migozlo
and rarely had enough food to satisfy his hunger.

He once said: There are many rich people who have unlimited amounts of money
to buy every delicacy imaginable, but they derive no pleasure from it all -
because they have no appetite and in fact spend fortunes visiting doctors
about this problem. I thank Hashem that He has given me a healthy appetite...

'Vayaruvecho' - and he made you hungry - he gave you an appetite - and then
'Vayachilcho es Hamon...'

SHOLMO B ABELES

I wrote:
> This post raises the issue as to what is the difference between (i) the
> case of an amalgamation of individual actions which together yield a PR
> but each individually is not a PR, and (ii) the din of safek pesik reisha.
> In a case of safek psik reisha (e.g., you do not remember whether you forgot
> to turn off the light in the refrigerator), the Taz is meikal and the BH
> treats it according to ordinary klalei hasafek -- where the underlying issur
> is deoraysa - lechumra, and where derababnan - lekula. Perhaps the Taz is
> the basis for the kula of RSZA quoted in SSK regarding walking across a lawn
> where grasses will inevitably be removed.

R. Moshe Feldman correctly pointed out to me that the above comment is
not true. The issue of safek pesik reisha (or what the acharonim term PR
leshe'avar) relates to an existing metzius that the individual is unaware of.
The case of whether PR is evaluated based on a series of related events or
the individual events would still be in the category of PR lehaba. So the
two issues are not related.

KT, Shimon Isaacson

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


[ 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         ]