Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 017

Thursday, October 19 2000

• Dorshei Reshumos
• RE: Sukkah Sensitivity
• Secular education for Rabbanim
• tallis question
• RE: tallis question
• RE: Bishul and Timers
• Re: tallis question
• RE: tallis question
• Re[2]: R' Abbahu's "compromise"
• Leitzanus
• Re: Using a match on Yom Tov
• RE: Sukkah Sensitivity
• Re: Secular education for Rabbanim
• Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky vort
• Re: Using a match on Yom Tov
• Sukaso shel Livyasan
• V'nocho olov ruach Hashem...
• L'Rosh v'lo l'zonov
• RE: Sukkah Sensitivity
• RE: V'nocho olov ruach Hashem...
• Re: tallis question
• Re: Malachim and Bechirah
• Re: Fw: tinok shenishba (fwd)
• Re: tinok shenishba
• Timers and bishul
• Re: Timers and bishul
• RE: Sukkah Sensitivity

At 10:16 PM 10/17/00 +0200, S. Goldstein wrote:
>vu shtait that al pi kabala apikorsim have a helek in OhB?

Dorshei Reshumos, Sanhedrin 104b, ayain R' Tzadok in many places, including 
Yisroel Kedoshim p. 122 col. 2.

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

R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer:
> 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. 

Nu, and so what prompted the CC to tear up Polish postage stamps when using
private mail service?
 
Wasn't he being sensitive to the Gentile society around him?

And who says sensitivity is about secular education?  Maybe it's about being
involved in civic affairs and being a contributor to society at large? 

Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

<< Look it, while R' Meir Simcha and the She'eilas Dovid were for general
 education and involvement for rabbonim, >>

Do you have a source for this (especially with regard to RMS)?

Yitzi Oratz (new to the list)

I just started using my grandfather's tallis again.  I haven't worn it
since my wedding almost 10 years ago, when we used it as the chuppah.
Since I had no living grandparents at the time, it was nice to have a
relic of one of them as an integral part of the wedding.

Now, I know that Lubavitchers eschew the atarah, the decorated cloth or
scale-mail collar on a tallis.  Contemporary Lubavitch taleisim have a
lining in the middle, for the part that goes over the head, and a simple
line of stitching to show which side is "up" (one use for the atarah 
is to show which side is "up", so that one always wears the tallis in
the same orientation - the mitzvah being better done through being done
the same way every time).  But Lubavitchers also have a distinctive way
of tying the tzitzis, with a second hole to anchor the tzitzis on a 
particular side of the corner.

This tallis is lined, with only simple stitching to show which way
is "up".  But its tzitzis (tzitziyoth?) are tied in the normal
Ashkenazic way.

There is some dispute within the family as to whether the family
was chassidish or misnagdish.  One great-grandfather wore small 
Russian peyos, the other didn't (both great-grandfathers were
brothers, so my grandparents were first cousins).  They were from
the Berdichev area; the one with peyos from Berdichev, the one 
without from Proskurov, and their grandfather was from Chudnov.
These great-grandfathers were born in the 1840s.  My grandfather,
whose tallis this was, was born in 1890, married 1912, came to 
the US in 1914, by which time he had pretty much stopped being
religious.  But he kept this tallis with him through half a 
dozen houses and apartments.  My aunt & uncle found it cleaning
out my grandparents' final apartment in Florida.

What I want to know is, does this style of tallis: lined, no atarah,
Ashkenazic tzitzis, indicate anything about Chassidish or Misnagdish
group affiliation in late 19th-early 20th-century Russia (Ukraine)?

   Jonathan Baker     | I see the Tik'u Bachodesh Shofar design on arks &
   jjbaker@panix.com  | scrolls; does the verse end "kisui leyom chageinu"?
     Web page update: Ki-Tavo, Nitzavim. http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/

> the same way every time).  But Lubavitchers also have a distinctive way
> of tying the tzitzis, with a second hole to anchor the tzitzis on a
> particular side of the corner.

This isn't a Lubavitch shita -- it's a Chassidic custom to have two holes in
each corner.

Akiva

From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
> 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).

I appreciate this source, I guess to resate my question:
Amongst those that DO permit a timer, can the timer go on off and on again
OR once it clicks off it must stay off.

IOW the issue is re: bishul and chazara more than re: timer.   

Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 09:23:01PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: This isn't a Lubavitch shita -- it's a Chassidic custom to have two holes in
: each corner.

I've seen two variants:

a- Two holes, all 4 strings go through both.
b- A large hole for 3 of the strings, the string that is used for winding
   goes through a second smaller hole.

I don't understand (a), as it pushes the tzitzis away from the corner
of the beged at a right angle.

In contrast, the Shulchan Aruch requires that the loop run sideways
so that the tzitzis hang down from there to the corner of the
beged. Definition of "sideways" is going to change based on how one
wears the begged; some ways of wearing a tallis put the top (the side
without the knots) running more vertical above the corner, some put
the side that way. The acharonim therefore seem to argue on this point,
but I believe they are really discussing differing metzius.

Can someone explain the two shitos for having two holes: makoros,
sevara, and who holds by each?

-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

I heard that the two holes was davka becaue of "al kanfei bigdeihem" and the
2-holes engineers the tzitizs to hang on top of the knaf instead of thru
it...

Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

As usual, I'm late and the subject has become obsolete (until next year).

Re: my: 
> Could it be that R' Abbahu did not say to blow the different combinations of 
> teki'a-terua'-teki'a but only the shevarim-terua' form?...i.e., only
> the combined shevarim-terua' form is necessary.

R' ChaimB. replied:
> You are mechavein to the shitas R"T (R"H, Tos 33b).

Correct, but yet, perhaps, there is a difference. The beginning of that
Tos. states that R' Abbahu was matkin TSR"T, TS"T, TR"T, I suggested
that this is not so, that R' Abbahu did not require all three forms,
but that TSR"T alone was enough. In the discussion following his takana
(on R"H, 34a) he is not the one stating his opinion.

R"T, in the Tos., is referring only to the teki'ot in Mussaf where it was
customary to blow a different single form for each of the three blowings,
Malkh, Zikh, and Shof (as to this day by the Yekkes and others). R"T
recommends the single TSR"T form for all three places as per R' Abbahu.

R"T does not appear to be questioning the need for all three forms, i.e.,
30 kolot, before musaf, that was most probably an established custom in
his time. He questions only the omission of the TSR"T form in 2 out of
the 3 places in musaf. My suggestion hints that R' Abbahu might consider
TSR"T alone to be sufficient before musaf as well.

To atone for a sin of omission and to help bring geula la-olam, I must
mention that this thought originated not with me but with HaRav Pinehas
Vardi, who, as an adjunct to his life of Torah activities, has also been
magid shiur in our village for over 30 years.

Moadim le-simha,
David

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:26:05 +1000 SBA <sba@blaze.net.au> asked
> Can someone please help with the Makor of "Leytzanut echad docheh
> tochachot harbai" (or maybe it's "meah tochachot")

The closest I know of is this. 

The Ramchal writes in the fifth chapter of Messilas Yesharim, "B'leitzanus
echad u'bschok katan yapil ha'adam mai'alav ribui gadol min hahisorerus
v'hahispa'alus." ( "With only one act of mockery or bit of levity a great
deal of self-encouragement and self-rousing can fall to the ground.")

    -- Yaakov Feldman

A private conversation with one of our chaveirim ba'Avodah got me to this
justification (post-facto) of my use of yad soledes bo.

Is lighting a piece of wood hav'arah or bishul?

Well, if it's a new fire it's hav'arah, but if it's an old fire it's bishul.
(Which is why it's muttar on Yom Tov, IIUC.)

However, in this case one can't claim it's bishul, because nothing is heated
to yad soledes bo until must less than toch kidei dibbur after the new fire
erupts.

Which means that lighting a match where it bursts into flame before
getting overly close to the original flame would be either hav'arah or
*nothing* di'Oraisa, and therefore only deRabbanan on Shabbos?

-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

At 12:42 PM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Nu, and so what prompted the CC to tear up Polish postage stamps when using
>private mail service?
>
>Wasn't he being sensitive to the Gentile society around him?

No. He was being sensitive to Gezel.

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

At 03:02 PM 10/18/00 -0400, Yitzi777@aol.com wrote:
>> Look it, while R' Meir Simcha and the She'eilas Dovid were for general
>> education and involvement for rabbonim,

>Do you have a source for this (especially with regard to RMS)?

"He'Chofetz Chaim: Chayav u'Pa'alo" by Rabbi M. M. Yoshor vol. 1 chap. 42 
"Aseifas Ha'Rabbanim b'Peterburg" - especially pp. 347-350.

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

This is exactly the view that the Em Habanim Semecha sought to refute.
There are quite a number of sources which say that the nations of the
world themselves will give us permission to return to tziyon. And they
did--in 1917. And if HKBH works in that way, how can we object (Bahadei
kavsha derachmana lama lach?)
And of course, there are other ways to answer RYK's question.
For instance, I could suggest that this maamar chazal has come true in
the sense that so many are disconnected from Torah (letzaareinu) that
mimela, they have given up on the geula. Indeed, there is a song by
Israeli pop star Shalom Chanoch which says, "Mishiach lo Yavo/Mashiach
gam lo m'talpain" (what it means for mashiach to call on the phone,
I don't know). And obviously Reform doesn't believe in the geula.

Daniel

R' Micha Berger wrote
> ... 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. ...

I'm not clear on what aspect of this bothers you. Is bishul more machmir
than mav'ir?

Akiva Miller

Can anyone give mekoros, esp. in Chasidus, for the significance of the
Livyasan in general, and the Sukaso shel Livyasan specifically?

A Guttn Moed,
Daniel

Someone recently asked about the Tefilla "Ribbono shel Olom" said during
Psichas h'oron on sholosh regolim: "...V'yekuyam bi mikro shekosuv
v'nocho olov ruach Hashem etc."

This posuk refers to Moshiach - so are we asking that we be Moshiach!? And
every single one of us wants to be Moshiach?

Searching for an answer to this I found that the Munkatcher Rov z'l in
his sefer Chamisho Ma'amoros (Ma'amar Nusach Hatefiloh) asks exactly
this question.

He tries a few answers but isn't really satisfied with them (ayin shom).

He writes that some Machzorim have deleted that verse - as it may have
been inserted by the Kat Shatz ym"sh - however he disagrees - as the
machzor of the Arizal does have it.

Has anyone seen or heard anything on this?

SHLOMO B ABELES

Another overdue Rosh Hashono vort from the Divrei Yoel Machzor.

Re the minhag to eat 'rosh keves' (Tur 583) and say 'Y''R shenihyeh
l'rosh v'lo l'zonov' - he asks:

1) Why the double language - If we will be Rosh we are automatically
not Zonov?

2) If we are asking to be a 'Rosh' and not 'Zonov' - why not say
'Sheniyyeh Rosh v'lo Zonov' - what is the meaning of the 'L' (lamed) =
"to"?

3) Why be mesaken a tefilo in which every single member of k'lall
yisroel asks to be the Rosh? And if everyone is a Rosh - for whom are
we all Roshim?

He answers that we are 'takeh' not being mispallel that each and every
one of us should be Rosh, but rather *L'Rosh* - a 'tofel' to a Rosh -
a Godol and Tzaddik - and not L'Zonov - we should not be a 'tofel'
or belong to any person or group who/which is a Zonov.

He quotes an Ovos d'Reb Noson (30): which states that anyone who
associates with baalei aveiro - even if he hasn't committed that aveiro,
is punished as they are. Conversely, one who associates with 'oisei
mitzva' - even if he didn't actualy do the mitzvah - receives a reward
similar to them.

He continues that there are often persons who enjoy spending time in the
company of Tzaddikim but at the same time also associate with persons
and organisations which are 'nisht b'seder' - dancing at both chasunas
at once.

So we are indeed mispalell - 'shenihyeh l'rosh' (we should associate and
follow a Rosh) and at the same time - 'lo l'zonov' - not be associated
with a zonov...

SBA

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer":
>>Nu, and so what prompted the CC to tear up Polish postage stamps when using
>>private mail service?

>     He was being sensitive to Gezel.

w/o knowing what the rates were?  W/O knwoing how the post office worked?
W/O understanding how he was competing with them?  How can one apply any
choshen mishpat w/o knowing the dina malchusa including how agreements are
sealed (e.g. handshakre vs. contract) etc.?

And how was competing with the Polish post office Gezel?  Taht 's not how I
understood the story... it was more about hassagas gvul, how can you be
masig gvul w/o having a hasaga of hwa the gvulim are?

SBA
> Someone recently asked about the Tefilla "Ribbono shel Olom" said during
> Psichas h'oron on sholosh regolim: "...V'yekuyam bi mikro shekosuv
> v'nocho olov ruach Hashem etc."

> Searching for an answer to this I found that the Munkatcher Rov z'l...
> He writes that some Machzorim have deleted that verse ...        the
> machzor of the Arizal does have it.

The only thing I have heard about this  paragraph is that it should be
recited silently...  

Moadim Lesimcha
Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

> Can someone explain the two shitos for having two holes:

The minhag is brought by the last Beis Yosef in siman 11 who writes
"aino min hamachmirim elah min hamatmihim". The Bach there defends the
minhag for tallis katan only. The Aruch HaShulchan discusses the issue
you raised regarding the sideways/corner hanging of tzitzis based on this
shita; he also claims there is no basis to ascribe the minhag to the AR"I
(as others claim) and, like the B"Y, is strongly opposed to the minhag.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 06:47:17PM -0700, Gil Student wrote:
: The gemara in Shabbos (88b) explicitly says that malachim don't have a yetzer
: hara as does the Midrash Rabbah (Bereishis 45:11). Ramchal explains this
: (in his introduction to Derech Etz Hachaim) that knowledge of the truth
: distances the yetzer hara which is why malachim do not have a yetzer hara.

It would seem that the Ramchal holds a synthesis of the opinions we ascribed
to the Rambam and the Or Samei'ach -- because of the knowledge of truth (Or
Samei'ach) there is a change in their mamashus that removes the kisharon
(Rambam), not just the opportunity, of bechirah.

: However, in Chagiga (15a) we that the angel Metatron fooled Acher into
: thinking that there were two reshuyoc (ch"v) and was therefore punished.

Does something that lacks bechirah have a "self", something that has the
subjective experience of pain? Can a rock be punished?

If there is no "self" then we're forced to conclude like R' Chananel, that
punishment is only an anthropomorphic description as RGS writes later:
:                                      It was Metatron's job to fool Acher and
: his "punishment" was really just a lesson to us about the results of sinning.

: The Sefer Chasidim (530) and the Sodei Razia (brought in Yalkut Reuveni,
: Bereishis p. 36), however, explain the sins of malachim differently. They say
: that while malachim cannot sin due to a yetzer hara, they can make the wrong
: decision based on a lack of facts.

Much like the Rambam on Adam kodem lacheit.

-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

On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:26:41AM -0500, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
:> Far from "of course", that's not what the Rambam says. The Rambam says
:> "kol Yisrael" excludes resha'im -- that a rasha isn't "Yisrael" and
:> therefore has *no* guarantee of a "cheilek li'olam haba". 

: Where is the Rambam?

Peirush haMishnayos, in my edition it's printed before Avos, on "kol Yisrael
yeish lahem cheilek"...

: Anyway, I am a "mekkubal" :-) , and we "dorshei reshumos" hold that even
: those enumerated in the mishna and Chelek get into OhB.

What about those who get kareis?

This may touch on the difference between "cheilek LI'olam haba" vs
"cheilek BI'olam haba". The braisa talks about getting a cheilek of
something unnamed toward olam haba -- not whether or not one gets
olam haba.

For that matter, Seifer ha'Ikkarim has it that gehennom is also olam
haba. (Rambam might also, see intro to Cheilek -- it's hard to tell
whether gehennom is onesh in OhB or the cessation of existance he
associates with kareis.)

-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

On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 11:40:40PM -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: 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?

I could be wrong. I took it as a given that those who mattir counting
non-O Jews toward a minyan, such as RJBS, RMMS (the L Rebbe), and RAYK,
do not mattir drinking stam yeinam. I didn't really think about it, though.

-mi

> Amongst those that DO permit a timer, can the timer go on off and on
> again OR once it clicks off it must stay off.

You cannot violate a melacha - bishul, or any other - passively. In this
case you haven't done anything other than allow your keilim to continue
operating, and there is no problem if shvisas keilim.

The chiddush R' Shachter develops to assur this assumes:
1) Chazarah is not an issur melacha, but a gezeirah
2) Gezeiros, as opposed to melachos, can be violated passivley. Example:
R' Akiva Eiger prohibits mechiras chametz to be chal on shabbos shel
erev pesach even if the ma'aseh mechira was done on erev shabbos because
mekach u'memkar is a gezeirah, and gezeiros are prohibited even if just
the chalos with no ma'aseh occurs on shabbos.

In Eretz HaTzvi siman 6 he has other nafka minos between gezeiros and
melachos, and notes that the Melamed l'Hoil takes a counter position
regarding the timer/bishul question.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 10:19:09AM -0400, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: The chiddush R' Shachter develops to assur this assumes:
: 1) Chazarah is not an issur melacha, but a gezeirah
: 2) Gezeiros, as opposed to melachos, can be violated passively...

Just this morning, I emailed a group of people a summary of something I wrote
based on the very same shiur (as retold by R' Yonasan Sacks). It was written
for scj as an explanation of what kinds of new halachos exist. The post since
went into scj's FAQ, although I don't know when as I wasn't consulted about
it. As it would be interesting to compare your impressions with my 2nd hand
ones, and as I think the topic is one even us yeshiva graduates don't really
think through, here is an excerpt:

> 1. Minhag. Custom. ...

> 2. Din dirabanan. A rabbinic law. These are set up by the rabbinate,
>    instead of the masses, in order to preserve the spirit of the
>    law. For example, Purim and Chanukah. There are 7 new commandments
>    that are entirely rabbinic, bringing the famous total of 613 mitzvot
>    up to 620.

> 3. Gezeira dirabanan. A rabbinic "fence". These are enacted to prevent
>    a common cause for breaking the act of the law. For example, one may
>    not place food directly on a fire before Shabbat in order to keep
>    it heated during Shabbat. This is a fence around the law against
>    cooking on Shabbat. To prevent the gezeira from being violated,
>    a metal cover, called a blech in Yiddish, is placed on the stove
>    top before Shabbat with the flame (turned to a low setting) under
>    one section and the pot with food placed on the blech. This blech
>    serves as a fence, allowing heating of the food without any danger of
>    violating the law. Note that a "gezeira dirabanan" becomes binding
>    only if it is accepted by the community.

> 4. P'sak. A Rabbinic Ruling ...

> The distinction between the second and third categories is subtle. In
> order to be a Din (or Issur, or Melachah) Dirabanan, the prohibited
> action must be similar in purpose to the permitted one. A gezeira does
> not even require an action. In the example I gave, it was inaction,
> leaving the pot where it is, that is prohibited. The category includes
> things that are similar in means to the prohibited act, and will
> therefore cause confusion about what is and what isn't okay; and
> things which will allow people to be caught up in habit, and forget
> about the prohibition. Only a gezeira may defy an actual Divine law
> (although a p'sak will often define one), and even so only under
> specific circumstances. All of the following must be satisfied:
> + The law being protected is more stringent than the one being
>   violated. This determination isn't easy.
> + The law is being violated only through inaction. No one is being
>   told to actively violate G-d's commandment.
> + The law being violated will still be applicable in most situations. It
>   still must exist in some form.

> On the other hand, a gezeira is less powerful than a normal rabbinic
> law in that they can not be compounded. One may not make a "fence" for
> the express purpose of protecting another "fence". A law is considered
> accepted if it becomes common practice. Any din or gezeira which does
> not get accepted by the masses in the short run, does not become binding
> in the long run. Similarly, there are rules for p'sak, but they are
> violated if the masses choose to follows some other rabbinic body's
> p'sak. Notice, however, that this is only in the short run. Once a
> law is accepted, it may only be overruled by p'sak. It cannot just
> fade into non-practice.

For the complete article, see
<http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/04-02.html>.


-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

>w/o knowing what the rates were?  W/O knwoing how the post office worked?
>W/O understanding how he was competing with them?  How can one apply any
>choshen mishpat w/o knowing the dina malchusa including how agreements are
>sealed (e.g. handshakre vs. contract) etc.?

Good Heavens!

Do you mean that anyone who knows how to mail letters is a TIDE or TuM'nik?!

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

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


[ 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         ]