Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 107

Saturday, January 20 2001

• RE: More about heikha kedusha and hazarat hashatz
• Re: Heicha Kedusha
• RE: Parasha question
• Re: Parasha question
• Re: Heicha Kedusha
• Re: Fluorescent lights
• Re: Avodah V6 #106
• Hotzoa
• Re: Hotzoa
• Re: Tzelem Elokim

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Notice that in proving nothing is lost, the Rambam only addresses
> the role of chazaras hasha"tz in aiding someone who doesn't know the
> words. He does not address the concept R' Chaim Brisker is medayeik from
> the Rambam's lashon, that of tefillas HAtzibbur.

Going one step further: historians of halacha have often cast doubt on
whether R. Chaim's interpretations of the Rambam truly reflect the Rambam's
intent.  (For example, they often claim that the Rambam was based on
Yerushalmi.)

It would seem that R. Chaim's pshat in tefillas HAtzibbur is incorrect,
given the language of the Rambam's tshuvah--"I think that there is [almost]
nothing lost thereby."  Can anyone suggest a way to reconcile that language
with R. Chaim?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Amihai Bannett wrote:
> We have discussed this issue at our Kolel, and this question came up:
> What should the tzibbur do while the chazzan says the first 3 brachot. If
> everybody just answers amen, isn't the chazan davening beyachid? and if
> everybody davens belachash with him, then where's chazarat hashatz?

My comments on this fall into a recurring theme of mine: if the rishonim
all agreed on one issue (but only if there are no exceptions), then it would
seem that it is the proper to folow them, unless there is a clear and cogent
reason brought by aharonim to explain why things have changed. (I apologize
for having recurring themes, but having been reading the posts for a couple
of months, I perceive that many of the haverim have their themes as well.)
I will not spend time quoting all the sources: you and your fellows in
the Kolel can do that yourselves. Adrabba, I encourage you to; if I could,
I would insist that you do. Don't accept my words at face value. As RYBS
used to yell at us in shiur: don't just listen to me! Open your books and
read for yourselves! Tell me if I'm wrong!

I will give you the references, and you can do the rest: RMo' in OH 124:2 says
that the tzibbur starts with the Shatz and davens with him the first three
"millo b'millo." RMo' in OH 232:1, the same; the M'habber says everyone
davens b'lahash first and then the Shatz does the first three. See the
sources for both positions in the Beis Yosef and Darkhei Moshe in the Tur
in the same places.

Both shitos are based on the position of Rashi (and Tosfos and others) about
the Mishna of Porsin 'al Sh'ma' brought in Tur OH 69 that you are allowed to
"split" the brokhos of Sh'ma' and the Shmoneh Esrei in certain situations.
The Rambam and the Geonim have a different understanding and does not allow
this "splitting," and so the Rambam's version of "heikhe kedusha" is that
everyone davens the entire shmone esrei millo b'millo with the Shatz saying
it out loud.

The idea that the Shatz would start out by himself and the people would start
davening later is not mentioned by any Rishon, not a one. The first mention
of such an idea is the Be'er Heitev on 124 s'k 4, which is misquoting the
Mogen Avrohom and the Lehem Hamudos (don't believe me, go look yourself). And
it doesn't make any sense: the shitta ostensibly holds that everyone davens
together only if there is not enough time to do it the other way. Now com'on,
guys, what is the difference in time between the two ways? 95 seconds,
approximately. In the days when they told time by sundials, or even in the
time of the Mogen Avrohom, could they stand there when the sun was going down
or the time of tefilla was ending and say: this way takes 4 min 30 sec and
the other way takes 95 seconds longer, which one do we have time for??? The
hilluq in cases of the Be'er Heitev could never exist until modern times.

So according to the RMo', everybody davens together until after the 3rd
brokho, and according the Rambam until the end of Shmoneh Esrei. Where is
chazarat hashatz, you ask? Look at the sources: you have tefilla b'tzibbur,
you have tefillas hatzibbur if you hold that way, you have the shatz being
motzi those who can't daven according to the Rambam, you have everyone
who can saying his own tefilla. You have everything you need, regardless
of what you call it. And according to Rashi: porsin 'al Sh'ma' according
to him, was a specific taqqonon of Hazal that the first 3 could substitute
in certain cases for all 19. Could this be motzi someone who was not baqi?
Probably not, but Rashi holds it was a special taqqono to cover either sh'as
had'haq and some other cases.

K't and S's,
Seth Mandel

Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 11:29 PM
> On the "Morsel of Hebrew Grammar" parasha sheet,  he asks why, if
> Bemidbar becomes sefer Bamidbar,  doesn't shemos become sheimos?

FWIW, My predecessor Rabbi Ralph Neuhaus, OBM transliterated the parsha as
"sheimos" not as sh'mos.

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 11:28:32PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: On the "Morsel of Hebrew Grammar" parasha sheet,  he asks why, if
: Bemidbar becomes sefer Bamidbar,  doesn't shemos become sheimos?

R' Jack Love, an LOR in Passaic, calls the seifer "B'midbar". I recall
this from a column he wrote for Toras Aish. (Just to contrast with
RRW's recollections.)

FWIW, it's probably something folksey, like "sheimos" means the remnants
of sefarim to too many people for it to have caught on as the name of
the seifer in chumash.

Which raises another question: when did the books acquire the names we
currently use rather than the thematic ones we find in Chazal?

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

R. Seth Mandel wrote:
     
> I will give you the references, and you can do the rest: RMo' in OH 124:2 
> says that the tzibbur starts with the Shatz and davens with him the first 
> three "millo b'millo." RMo' in OH 232:1, the same; the M'habber says everyone
> davens b'lahash first and then the Shatz does the first three. See the 
> sources for both positions in the Beis Yosef and Darkhei Moshe in the 
> Tur in the same places.

FWIW, the Mishnah Berurah quotes a number of acharonim who pasken like the 
mechaber - that everyone should daven with the shatz.  IIRC, RYBS held 
that this was preferable because this way the kedushah would be said as 
part of a shemoneh esreh and not on its own.
     
Gil Student

(A nit, but the spelling is fluorescent).

If the mercury is liquid inside the bulb when it's off, why does tilting
a new fluorescent bulb back and forth not produce a sloshing sound?  Is the
liquid trapped in some pocket inside the bulb with no empty air space to
prevent this sloshing sound?

The heat contained in a tiny filament at even very high temperatures 
(500-1000F?) would be very small, probably not enough to cause one to 
retract one's hand instinctively.  Did Chazal consider temperature or heat
in defining yad soledes bo (I would think heat, since at the physical
scale of the human hand and absent a vacuum, there's not much difference
between temperature and heat, mah she'ein kein at small dimensions and
high vacuum as in a fluorescent bulb).

-Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> As to why the bulb is cool, realize that the filament in an incandescent
> bulb reaches 20,000deg or so.

Actually, it is near 2500C (4500F).  Even the surface of the sun is only 6000C

> By comparison that is cool -- and yet still
> well into bishul territory. So the outside glass doesn't get hot.

Experience tells me hat a 40W bulb that has been on for a while is near
the yad soledes bo temperature

> Even if it needn't be as hot as 678deg to boil the mercury, the mercury isn't
> boiling because of temperatures below 160.

That is completely dependent on the pressure in the evacuated tube.
It will boil at 115F if the pressure in the tube is below 1.56e-5
atmospheres. I have no idea what the pressure really is. I would ask a
separate quesion. Could we call it cooking at less than yad soledes bo?
Is it cooking when you open a container of liquid nitrogen or dry ice
on shabbos (dry ice is different since it sublimates, maybe that is
burning!)?

> In either case, the filament itself, has to be yad soledes bo and glowing
> in order to throw electrons or holes toward a second filament that can be
> as far as two yards away.

It is my understanding that the intially high voltage causees the
mercury to boil and release a cloud of electrons. These ionize the gas
in the tube, creating the arc from one filament to the other. The arc
is essentially a short circuit between the filaments. The filaments
remain "hot" from the small current needed to maintain this arrangement
(including stopping the arc from short circuiting the light), and from
bombardment by ionized gas. How hot is hot? I don't know.

>: A separate thought: there is only a tiny drop of mercury; if bishul is
>: are only issue, than would that not be only derabanan?

> You're asking about chatzi shiur? If so, what's the shiur?

I don't know. But the point is that turning on a fluorescent light may not
carry the same level of issur as turning on an incandescent bulb does.
As I noted before, this might depend on the type of ballast and bulb
being used.

elly
--
Elly Bachrach
Heide Corporation http://www.heidecorp.com
Phone: (847) 676-2880
Fax: (847) 982-2304
mailto:ebachrach@heidecorp.com

Can someone help me out here?  I'm studying Hotzoa in R' Ribiat's Lamud-Tes
Melochos and I'm confused.

From what I understand, the concept of churei r'shus hayochid allows me to
extend a private domain into some areas that are accessories and directly
connected to a private domain.  And so, a window ledge or a balcony, or a
raised deck are examples of this.

So far, so good.

RR says that a 'gud assik' allows one, under certain conditions, to extend
the rshus hayochid upward towards the sky.  He gives as an example bringing
in clothing (already dried before shabbos) that is hanging on a clothes
line high above a fenced in yard.  Because of gud assik this is permissible.

Here's where I get confused.

He also says that a solid concrete porch (say, steps that lead up to a
landing in front of your front door) that is greater than 10 tefochim high
is considered a rshus hayochid _and_ gush assik can apply.  "It is
therefore permitted to pick up a key etc on such a porch", he writes.

Whoa.  Wait a minute.  What if it was considered a rshus hayochid but gud
assik does not apply (say, e.g., a solid porch that is 5 tefochim high)?
Does that mean I can't bring anything into the house from there?

If so, what about the window ledge or raised deck which is considered a
rshus hayochid by virtue of the concept of churei r'shus hayochid?  Is R
Ribiat saying I can not carry anything from the raised deck into the house?
 Isn't a solid concrete porch that is 5 tefachim high considered a rshus
hayochid by virtue of the concept of churei r'shus hayochid?

I hope I have explained it clear enough so that someone can see the
contradiction here (and, presumably, the mistake I am making).

Thanks in advance,

Eric

[Definitely not to be relied on halachah lema'aseh.]

Eric Simon wrote:

> Whoa.  Wait a minute.  What if it was considered a rshus hayochid but gud 
> assik does not apply (say, e.g., a solid porch that is 5 tefochim high)? Does 
> that mean I can't bring anything into the house from there?
     
Let me get this straight.  You have a walled house and in front of the door 
is a porch that is less than ten tefachim high and has no walls.  

This was recently in halachah yomis.  It can be found in Orach Chaim 353:2 
http://www.ansheibneitorah.com/halacha2001/dec24.htm

Because the porch is within ten tefachim of the ground and has no walls, it 
is part of the reshus harabim (or karmelis).

> If so, what about the window ledge or raised deck which is considered a 
> rshus hayochid by virtue of the concept of churei r'shus hayochid?  

They are above ten tefachim from the ground.
 
Gil Student

To add to RMB's comments, let me cite what a chaver wrote me offline:
I don't know what exactly is Mfurosh in Tanya, in Likutei Torah and other
Mamorim it says that true Bechira is Shayich only by a Jew, the Rebbe in
a letter discusses what about their Schar Vonesh and the 7 Mitzvohs B"N.

To put it mildly, I do not understand this. Bechira is an act of will, and
goyim have will. Perhaps what the L. Rebbe and other sources below mean
is that the *ramifications* of the Bechitra of an individual possessed of
Naranch"i are different than those of one who does not possess Naranch"i.
This pertains to impact on the olomos elyonim and the nature of sechar
v'onesh, but not to the act of will per se.

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         ]