Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 016

Wednesday, October 18 2000

• Re: Sukkah Sensitivity
• Re: Machshava on Sukkos
• Re: [wordprocessing on] Chol ha-Moed
• RE: Sukkah Sensitivity
• Re: Avodah V6 #14
• Sukkah Sensitivity
• RE: Sukkah Sensitivity
• perspective on current events
• re: tinok shenishba
• re: tinok shenishba
• RE: Sukkah Sensitivity
• leytzanut
• Using a match on Yom Tov
• [none]
• Bishul and Timers
• RE: tinok shenishba
• RE: Sukkah Sensitivity
• RE: Using a match on Yom Tov
• Re: Using a match on Yom Tov
• Bishul and Timers

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
>                               And on the other hand, any thatched SCHACH
> that is so thick that rain cannot permeate is also not valid. 
...

Well, besides personally disagreeing, the halacha disagrees, IIRC, as
well: Me'ubeh k'ein bayis is kasher according to Beis Hillel.

>          any barrier that does not allow rain drops or Starlight, that
> is so thick-skinned as to be totally insensitive to the outside world,
> is also no good. IOW, avoiding assimilation does not entitle us to erect
> barriers that completely eliminates sensitivity to the outside world at
> large....

Look it, while R' Meir Simcha and the She'eilas Dovid were for general
education and involvement for rabbonim, R' Chaim Soloveitchik and the
Chofeitz Chaim (and the Rebbe Rashab!) were against and won the day. No
one in their right mind would say that RCS and the CC were lacking any
measure of sheleymus and gadlus because they were not me'urav with general
civilization. 

Different strokes for different folks. No blanket statements necessary.

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In Avodah V6 #15, RWolpoe wrote:
> Sukkos:     ha'Asif (harvest)    Simchaseinu {rejoicing}
>  The question is what is the Historical event associated with Rejoicing

See http://tanach.org/special/succot.txt.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah V6 #15, MBerger replied
> According to the shitah of R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger (my
> great-grandfather) that I have quoted in the past, the issur against
> writing on chol hamo'ed is tied to tefillin. IOW, those who say one
> shouldn't wear tefillin are the same who say one may not write on chol
> hamo'ed.

Perhaps because writing was once considered m'leches uman (rough
translation: "skilled act")?

> This would imply, l'fi aniyas da'ati, that RYAAK would not consider
> typing, which would not be kasher for tefillin, to be any different than
> any other melachah -- and would be muttar in cases of hefsed merubah...

I won't speak to the shinui recommendations re writing, but surely typing
is not m'leches uman (i.e. no need to limit oneself to cases of hefsed,
etc.), nor can its result be said to have permanence (consider writing
with invisible ink or toothpicks).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

From: [mailto:owner-avodah@aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Shoshanah M. & Yosef G.
Bechhofer
> Well, besides personally disagreeing, the halacha disagrees, IIRC, as
> well: Me'ubeh k'ein bayis is kasher according to Beis Hillel.

See KSA 134:5
Lechatchila requires starlight but passul bedieved if it is so thick rain
cannot penetrate 

It was upon this KSA I based this post...

Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

The 9 Av story is in Eichah Rabsi.  See Tos at the end of Taanis, Bava Basra
121a and Maharsha there.

Perhaps I can offer an answer to minimize the question regarding the date.
Only Moed is dependent on Bais Din.  Shabbos, for example, is not.  Perhaps
they felt that the gzera to die in the desert was not dependent on Bais Din.
Also perhaps the mistake was twofold.  Perhaps they were wrong on the first
year what day it was considered concerning Heaven's decree.  That is maybe
the original decree was 9, 10 or 11 in the month.  Then in the last year
they could be worried that the original 11 was 11, 12 or 13 for this last
year.  Now it is merely a question of 1 day why the 15th.

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> This can be considered a metaphor for how a Jew should deal with the 
> outside world.
 
 A protection or barrier of less than 50% is invalid, it is too prone to
assimilation. It is by definition more outside than inside, it is too
permeable to be considered valid protection.
 
> However, any barrier that does not allow rain drops or Starlight,
> that is so thick-skinned as to be totally insensitive to the outside
> world, is also no good. IOW, avoiding assimilation does not entitle us
> to erect barriers that completely eliminates sensitivity to the outside
> world at large.

        However, chamasah meruba mitzilasa, too much exposure to the
world, in your metaphor, is a psul bediavad. Not allowing starlight in
is a chumra, and not allowing rain in is "nachon lehachmir" according
to the Mishna Berura. The danger of over exposure to the world is much
greater than under exposure.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> A protection or barrier of less than 50% is invalid, it is too prone to
> assimilation. It is by definition more outside than inside, it is too
> permeable to be considered valid protection.

according to KSA if rain cannot get in it is also passul bedieved.

BOTH extremes are passul, and that is my point.

I would agree that 51% is bedieved, but too much schach is also bedieved.
Three is no chumrah in adding TOO much schach aderabbo...

I thought the Areivim would appreciate a vort from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky
which I heard from Rav Moshe Scheinerman at a shmooze this morning:

On the posuk in Ha'azinu, "ve'efes atzur ve'azuv", RYK quotes the
Gemara in Sanhedrin that ain ben David bah ad sheyis'ya'ashu min hageulah.
He asks, how could the geulah depend on giving up one of the 13 ikkarim?

His answer is that as long as klal Yisrael anticipates geulah in a natural
way, that the nations of the world will have rachmonus on us and will
allow us to build a homeland, vadai that the geulah will not come.
We are the most hated of all the nations, and only once we abandon
these delusions and realize that "en lanu lehisha'ein elah al Avinu
Shebashamayim, then Mashiach will come.

This is why HKB"H had Moshe Rabbenu come to Par'oh and ask for the Jews to
be released from Mitzrayim, and then immediately afterward Par'oh made
it worse, so that the Jews would not listen to Moshe Rabbenu mikotzer
ruach ume'avodah kasha. HKB"H wanted klal Yisrael to understand that it
was He who was taking them out of Mitzrayim, and there was absolutely
no hope of geulah in any natural way with the cooperation of Par'oh.

He (RMS)also quoted a Kli Yokor on uforatzto yama vakedma.. who says
similarly, ayen sham.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Even those who mattir counting a TsN as part of a minyan do not permit
> stam yeinam.

I had always thought that these two went hand-in-hand, along with several
other halachos such as cooking for them on Yom Tov, or allowing them to
duchan. Can you give examples of who allows a Tinok SheNishba for some of
these but not for others?

Akiva Miller

R' YGB wrote:
> Why can you not daven with resho'im?! "Kol ta'anis she'ein bo :
> me'posh'ei Yisroel eino ta'anis!" (i.e., we *are* allowed to daven
> with a poshea)

R' Micha Berger:
> Iz nisht azoi pashut. Before Kil Nidrei we have to explicitly grant
> reshus to daven with avaryanim.

RYBG again:
> Poetic license. Meant to instill eimas ha'din.

My understanding was that (far from being poetic license) the avaryanim
mentioned at Kol Nidrei are specifically the ones who have been put into
cherem, and thus banned from attendance at shul. (Artscroll mentions this
on pg 54 of the Ashkenaz Yom Kippur machzor.) If so, then even without
the heter of Kol Nidrei, we are allowed to daven with a rasha, poshea,
and/or TshN who was not of a degree which warranted cherem.

In addition, we can distinguish between davening with someone, and
actually counting that person towards the minyan, in which case RYGB's
quote does *not* necessarily prove that he can be counted towards the
minyan.

For the benefit of those who don't know where to look: For more info
regarding traditional cases (i.e., *not* Tinok SheNishba) see O"C 55:11
and elsewhere.

Akiva Miller

At 02:39 PM 10/17/00 -0400, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
>See KSA 134:5
>Lechatchila requires starlight but passul bedieved if it is so thick rain
>cannot penetrate

MB is machshir (b'di'eved). Based on both Bavli and Yerushalmi, I do not 
see why there is a reason not to be machshir. See the KSA im Piskei MB ad 
loc cit. Perhaps an impetus for Micha's project/

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: "Avraham (avi) and pnina parnes"
> Can someone please help with the Makor of "Leytzanut echad docheh
> tochachot harbai" (or maybe it's "meah tochachot")

The above was posted a while ago and meanwhile no one has responded. I
have asked everyone I thought should know - but without success.

Last night I was somewhere where they have various Torah CD's (Shas,
Midroshim, Chasidus, Mussar etc.) which we searched and it came up in
the Chazon Ish's Emunoh uBitochon.

I have since spoken to a Rav - a 'gezunteh' Talmid Chochom who told me
that without doubt there are earlier sources and suggested (possibly)
'Margnisa d'Reb Meir' (I've never heard of it) printed at the end of
Reshis Chochmo. I haven't had a chance to look that up yet.

We also did a search for another famous saying: "Machlokeh achas docheh
meoh parnosos" and again found one source - the Likutei Maharan.

I'll keep searching.

A guten Moed and a Guten Kvittel.

SBA

I was asked in email whether one can use a match to transfer a flame from
one candle to an unlit one on Yom Tov. "Der velt" clearly holds one can,
and see for example, Shemiras Shabbos keHilchaso.

However...

The head of a safety match is coated in a compound that is largely
antimony sulfide or antimony trisulfide. The material ignites at a
fairly low temperature (logically enough), roughly 100 deg F. IOW,
the match can burst into flame at temperatures below yad soledes bo.
If you look, the match will ignite a visible distance from the flame
of the candle you are bringing it next to.

If the match isn't yet even mevushal, I would think that kal vachomer
the fire on the match is not the same fire as the one on the candle.

It is quite likely that the SSkH didn't know the chemistry involved.

I therefore argued that the questioner should ask his poseik, and
until then, use the plain wood end of the match.

Someone else in the discussion questioned my kal vachomer. What do
you think?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

vu shtait that al pi kabala apikorsim have a helek in OhB?

Question:
Is there a problem with setting up a crock pot on timer on Shabbas so  that
goes off for an hour in the evening {for example from 10:00 PM - 11:00 PM)
and back on again until Noon?

Sources appreciated.

Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

Kenneth G Miller
>> Even those who mattir counting a TsN as part of a minyan do not permit
>> stam yeinam.

> I had always thought that these two went hand-in-hand, along with several
> other halachos such as cooking for them on Yom Tov, or allowing them to
> duchan. Can you give examples of who allows a Tinok SheNishba for some of
> these but not for others?

re: Kohein I heard that as long as a koehin did not vilate his khuna, even
if he did violate shabbos, he was ok to Duchan.  So a TsN who married a
divorcee or a giyores could NOT duchan.  But a koehn who was nizhar on his
khuna could Duchan despite being as mechallel shabbos; bug that same kohein
should not be oleh to the Torah on shabbos and his wine is afaik stam
yaynam.

It is loosely analogous to kussim who were machmir on various halachos that
they DID accept.

Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org On Behalf Of Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M.
Bechhofer
>>See KSA 134:5
>>Lechatchila requires starlight but passul bedieved if it is so thick rain
>>cannot penetrate

> MB is machshir (b'di'eved). Based on both Bavli and Yerushalmi, I do not 
> see why there is a reason not to be machshir. See the KSA im Piskei MB ad 
> loc cit. Perhaps an impetus for Micha's project/

FWIW according to piskei MB only "im i efsher lemaeit" can we be someich on
machshiring

Please recall that the post was about machsahva re: the need for balancing
the permeabilty not a psak din.

E.G. I've heard good machshovo/mussar about gebrugtz (matzah shruryah) that
makes sense despite the fact that I do not "hold" from gebrugtz....

Nevertheles I DO agree that Micha's project is a great idea.

I would go further, I would suggest a brand new piskei sefer including the
MB, AH, R. Moshe F. and CI too... especially in the areas of KSA outside of
Orach Chaim...
 
Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

From: Micha Berger
> The head of a safety match is coated in a compound ...
> the match can burst into flame at temperatures below yad soledes bo.
> If you look, the match will ignite a visible distance from the flame
> of the candle you are bringing it next to.

I suspect that at the plain old visible level lighting a mathc from
anexisting flame hasthe look and feel of a "transfer" and we ned not get
into the mearuing of specfics which would require equipment.  This is
loosely analogous imho to the idea of "no microscope necesary" principle.

Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:09:16AM -0400, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:> If you look, the match will ignite a visible distance from the flame
:> of the candle you are bringing it next to.

: I suspect that at the plain old visible level lighting a mathc from
: anexisting flame hasthe look and feel of a "transfer" and we ned not get
: into the mearuing of specfics which would require equipment.

Which is why I pointed out that it would NOT require equipment. Try the
experiment. The match bursts into flame roughly 3/4 of an inch from the
candle flame.

OTOH, there is also "hatavas haneiros".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> Question:Is there a problem with setting up a crock pot on timer on
> Shabbas so that goes off for an hour in the evening {for example from
> 10:00 PM - 11:00 PM) and back on again until Noon? Sources appreciated.

R' Hershel Shachter has a chiddush l'halacha (printed I think in Eretz
HaTzvi) prohibiting using a timer on a crock pot - others (e.g. Shmiras
Shabbos) permit it. (I do not recall the hesber of the machlokes offhand,
but that's the mareh makom).

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


[ 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         ]