Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 066

Monday, December 29 2003

• Re: chanukah and trvelling by plane overnight
• Re: chanukah and trvelling by plane overnight
• Re: [biblicalcoins] Re: Nummi Abrahami - The "Coin" of Abraham
• Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus
• Re: The shape of the Menorah of the Temple
• Re: layning on Chanukah
• Re: Chanukah Candles in Shul
• Early Maturity
• Re: Did Yitzchok Avinu Speak Rechilus?
• Eisav's Pathos (was: Did Yitzchok Avinu Speak Rechilus?)
• Re: Did Yitzchok Avinu Speak Rechilus?
• RE: Tzaar Baalei Chayim and Kashrus
• Mrs. Cohen's dilemma

Zev Sero wrote:
>If you take off after shkiah, why not light at the airport?

If that is the case, then one should have someone light at one's home at
that time. The only problem is if you are already in the air at the time.
There is a machlokes among the poskim whether you can be yotzei from
someone lighting at your house if you are in another city or country. R'
Hershel Schachter (BeIkvei HaTzon ch. 20) and the Minchas Yitzchak (vol. 7
no. 46) suggest that one cannot be yotzei while others are more lenient.
Thus, if you are up in the sky while your wife is lighting Chanukah
candles it is questionable whether you are yotzei from her lighting.

>Who says it's a sakanah?

Come on. Let's be realistic. It is definitely a sakanah. Regardless,
after 9-11 no one is going to let you light a candle on an airplane.

SBA wrote:
>I heard from someone here that our Rav paskened in such a case to
>take along a flashlight [what we call a torch], and have that with you
>in your seat. Switch it on [without a brocho] and hold it for half an hour.

The fact that you call it a torch is significant. Among other problems,
it is an avukah which may not be used for neiros Chanukah. But the poskim
are overwhelmingly against using an electric light for Chanukah.

Ari Kahn wrote:
>Does the plane constitute a place of sleeping? I have my doubts, if it
>does not, you can not light. If you were driving all night in a cab, I
>doubt you would have an obligation to light there.

The Aruch HaShulchan (677:5) writes that one can light with berachos on
a train. The She'arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah (139:13) defends this and
adds that someone on an airplane should also light with berachos.

But, how can they if they do not have a house and the mitzvah is "neir ish
u-beiso"? Mekom pita (or linah) is the decisive factor on what is your
"house". See RH Schachter's chapter mentioned above (it was originally
published in Kevod HaRav, if you have easier access to that).

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

Zev Sero wrote:
>If you take off after shkiah, why not light at the airport?

If that is the case, then one should have someone light at one's home at
that time. The only problem is if you are already in the air at the time.
There is a machlokes among the poskim whether you can be yotzei from
someone lighting at your house if you are in another city or country. R'
Hershel Schachter (BeIkvei HaTzon ch. 20) and the Minchas Yitzchak (vol. 7
no. 46) suggest that one cannot be yotzei while others are more lenient.
Thus, if you are up in the sky while your wife is lighting Chanukah
candles it is questionable whether you are yotzei from her lighting.

>Who says it's a sakanah?

Come on. Let's be realistic. It is definitely a sakanah. Regardless,
after 9-11 no one is going to let you light a candle on an airplane.

SBA wrote:
>I heard from someone here that our Rav paskened in such a case to
>take along a flashlight [what we call a torch], and have that with you
>in your seat. Switch it on [without a brocho] and hold it for half an hour.

The fact that you call it a torch is significant. Among other problems,
it is an avukah which may not be used for neiros Chanukah. But the poskim
are overwhelmingly against using an electric light for Chanukah.

Ari Kahn wrote:
>Does the plane constitute a place of sleeping? I have my doubts, if it
>does not, you can not light. If you were driving all night in a cab, I
>doubt you would have an obligation to light there.

The Aruch HaShulchan (677:5) writes that one can light with berachos on
a train. The She'arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah (139:13) defends this and
adds that someone on an airplane should also light with berachos.

But, how can they if they do not have a house and the mitzvah is "neir ish
u-beiso"? Mekom pita (or linah) is the decisive factor on what is your
"house". See RH Schachter's chapter mentioned above (it was originally
published in Kevod HaRav, if you have easier access to that).

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

From: I. Goldstein
> Coins were only minted as currency starting approximately 700 BCE. One
> must be careful and realize that there is NO reference to coins found
> in ANY of the five books of Moses (Chumash).

See the Mishna Maaser Sheni 1:2, where it mentions the Posuk - 'Vetzarto
Hakesef' re Maaser Sheni - that the 'kesef' must have a 'tsiyur'.

I would also like to hear your POV re the gemoro in Shabbos 33b where
it states that Yaakov 'invented' coinage.

SBA

Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com> wrote:
> Zev Sero <zsero@free-market.net> wrote:

>>> Anything that is for an actual purpose, rather than for the sake of
>>> torturing the animal, or pure laziness, is not included in the issur of
>>> Tzaar Baalei Chayim.
> 
> ...
> 
>>> So the production of fois gras does not involve a problem of Tzaar Baalei
>>> Chayim

> Although it is true that tzaar baalei chayim is permitted for human
> needs, it seems from several sources that *extreme* tzaar is not
> permitted for a *trivial* need.

Remember the specific example the Rema gives as permitted, something
so cruel that even though it is permitted nobody would actually do it.
Are you claiming that force feeding a goose is more extreme than
stripping off its feathers, or that ones desire for a tasty liver
is more trivial than ones desire for a pen or a comfortable pillow?

More than that, I don't know which sources you're relying on, but I
dispute the principle behind such a ruling.  As I see it, the point
of the issur is to prevent indulging a midat achzariut.  Why would a
person torture an animal, if he gets no tangible benefit?  The only
reason could be that he actually enjoys the animal's pain; that he
gets pleasure from seeing it suffer and die.  Why does a person go
hunting, when it would be cheaper and more convenient to buy meat at
the butcher's?  Because he wants to experience the thrill of the kill,
to indulge the hunting instinct, the Esav in him.  Or, in the Torah's
original example from which we derive this mitzvah, he is simply too
lazy to lift a finger to help out an animal in pain, because the
animal's suffering means absolutely nothing to him.  But when a person
does something for an articulable reason, and which incidentally causes
an animal to suffer, he is not exercising or encouraging a bad middah,
and there is no reason to prevent him from doing it.

In other words, I claim that when stripping the feathers from a live
bird, or stuffing a goose, or cutting the head off a bird to make a
child's toy (not on shabbos), the pain is a davar she'eno mitkaven,
and in Tzaar Baalei Chayim a davar she'eno mitkaven is mutar, even if
it is (literally) psik resha.

On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 07:42:10PM -0500, Seth Mandel wrote:
:        .... And what is the shape of the arms? Curved, but by no means
: circular like the ones on the Arch of Titus. Rather, they are more like
: the arc of an ellipse: they curve most sharply at the bottom and then,
: about a third of their length, they become almost straight. You can see
: this by comparing the space between the tops of the 7 arms, where the
: candles were. On the coin, the tops are all equidistant from each other,
: most importantly the two curved arms on either side of the central arm
: are the same distance from the central arm as all the other arms are
: from each other...

Why?

Quarter-circle arms or 45deg diagonal straight arms would end as far from
the middle pole as they are from the bottom. So, if the first pair of
arms leave the middle a distance of x from the top of the middle lamp,
their lamps would be x away from it. If the next arms were 2x from the
top, they would be 2x from the middle, and therefore x from the two
closer. Similarly if the third arms placed at 3x.

RSM posts something about Chazal's dimensions for the menorah. I forgot
where to find them, so I couldn't check whether the above were possible.

As for the Chanukiah... The Makabiim made a menorah from 7 wooden spears
(RH 24a). We're not commemorating the ideal menorah anyway.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Albert Schweitzer

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: 2. Ashkenazi (i.e Nusach Asskenaz and Sefard) shuls in Israel follow
: the Mechaber. What is the reason that these shuls follow the Mechaber
: on some halachot which then get turned into minhag Eretz Yisrael while
: normally paskenening like the Ramah.

My theory is (and I've posted this in the past) that anything followed
by two of the three qehillos that first came to EY became "minhag EY".
Those three being:
    1- Chaba"d
    2- Talmidei haGra
    3- Sepharadim

So the question here is whether Chaba"d and the Gr"a hold like the SA
rather than the Rama about whether leining on Chanukah continues or
repeats the text.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Albert Schweitzer

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:20:18PM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: I have to admit, I am very unclear about the whole topic of brachos
: which are said on minhagim. This includes not only the bracha on Hallel
: of Rosh Chodesh, but *any* brachah which is post-Chazal in origin...

"Post Chazal" meaning "post Ravina veR' Ashi" or "post Sanhedrin"?

IOW, is this an issue of having a beis din hagadol or hora'ah?

BTW, the MB mentions RYE asking about the berakhah in shul. He does not
assume the issue is a machloqes Ask vs Seph.

Rather, RYE makes a chiluq between making a berakhah on doing a minhag
(eg on chatzi Hallel on RCh) vs nidon didan where the pirsumei nisah
and therefore the minhag includes making the berkhah.

Which is why the Rambam raises the question of a berakhah on a deRabbanan
WRT Hallel, *after* he took it as a given that there is a berakahah on
mnorah. Because, RYE is masbir, the berakhah is part of the derabbanan
of menorah, not a 2nd thing caused by it.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Albert Schweitzer

MEYERFCAS@prodigy.net wrote:
<<The Chizkuni on Parashas Vayeshev points out...that if Er, Onan,
and Peretz had their first-borns at the age of 7 or 8, it would work out.
I'm trying to reconcile this with Rashi on Mikeitz who says that Achei
Yoseif didn't recognize him because he was beard-less when he was sold,
at the age of 17.>>

see Toisfos Sanhedrin 69a s.v. Beyodua who brings the Gemara Sanhedrin
69b that in the times of Tanach they had children at the age of 8! and
that maturity "signs" were also earlier but they were not considered
Gedolim until they became 13. However they don't discuss the beard.

The Maharam Shif on Bova Mitzea 39b says that at 17 they did not have
a beard and at 18 they did.

What is interesting to note that when the Gemara tries to prove that
they bore children at 8 they don't bring the children of Yehudah!

Meir Zirkind 

RnTK:
: I have translated "mirmah" as cleverness because when there are
: two different synonyms in Hebrew (or in any language), each conveys a
: slightly different shade of meaning. By defining "mirmah" as "chachma,"
: Rashi wanted to obviate the possibility of reading the whole incident
: as a case of fraud perpetrated on Esav by his mother and his brother.

: But "chachma" means wisdom, and "mirmah" means something a little
: different--cleverness is the best translation I can think of. But not
: sheker, at least not in this context.

Mirmah usually means echad bepeh ve'echad beleiv.

As it says in Even Sheleimah: "Netzor leshoni meira" -- from expressing
any ra' (he defines as ka'as) that I have in my heart; "usefasai medabeir
mirmah" -- from having ka'as in my heart that I am not expressing.

Mirmah need not be sheqer. It could be tactful silence. It could also
be emes, but given a different "spin" than what the person really feels.

...
: And it wasn't because she didn't love Esav, she did love him. When she
: tells Yakov to run away she says, "Why should I be bereaved of both of
: you, both my sons, on the same day?" Either Yakov would fight back and
: there was a risk that both sons would die in the fight, or Esav would be
: executed for murder. In either case, the way she talks of "both sons"
: makes it clear that she loved them both.

Tangentially: My understanding of this was colored by a statement by
Golda Meir, "We will forgive the Arabs for killing our sons. We will
never forgive them for turning our sons into killers."

I was thinking that if Yaaqov battled Eisav, he would either die, or
cease being Yaaqov avinu.

David was a David haMelekh and not a Shelomo even though the killing
he did was a "good thing".

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Albert Schweitzer

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 06:08:40PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: In all this assembly of deep-feeling individuals, the lines that you
: can't read without a tissue all come from tzaddikim--except for this one
: line of Esav's. Which BTW represents Esav at a rare moment of actual
: goodness, because what does he want? ... the intangible good of a
: bracha given by a tzaddik. ...

: What does it mean that a rasha is given a line of such unmistakeable
: poignance? I take it to mean that there is one grain of genuine
: grievance, that Esav does have one nekuda of justice on his side.

You made me think of the connection between Eisav, Edom, and the religion
that dominates galus Edom. Eisav doesn't expect to redeem himself. He
complains that his father doesn't give him salvation from G-d on a
silver platter.

Eisav wanted G-dliness, but thought he could get it from G-d rather than
"shuvah eilai ve'ashuvah eileikhem".

He simply didn't get the Jewish concept.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Albert Schweitzer

On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 11:29:16AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Call me miketanei emunah, I don't believe the Avos kept every jot and
: tittle of the halachos as written in the Chofetz Chaim or Mishna Berurah.
: I don't even
: know if they were kept exactly as written by all the gedolim who lived
: just a hundred years ago.

I refer you back to earlier discussions of this subject. RMMS holds that
their qiyum of kol haTorah kulah is that they did so on the level of
the tiqunim the mitzvos caused, even the tiqunim caused by deRabbanan's.
But not that they necesarily did so by following the halakhos themselves.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Albert Schweitzer

> animal's suffering means absolutely nothing to him.  But when a person
> does something for an articulable reason, and which incidentally causes
> an animal to suffer, he is not exercising or encouraging a bad middah,
> and there is no reason to prevent him from doing it.

Isn't overburdening an animal assur? Even though you get benefit from it?

> In other words, I claim that when stripping the feathers from a live
> bird, or stuffing a goose, or cutting the head off a bird to make a
> child's toy (not on shabbos), the pain is a davar she'eno mitkaven,
> and in Tzaar Baalei Chayim a davar she'eno mitkaven is mutar, even if
> it is (literally) psik resha.

To avoid an issur of Baal Tashchis, there has to be a *legitimate*
valid use in mind, not just a whim.

I suspect the same applies here. The question then centers around what
are acceptable valid uses.

(I also don't think any posek today would allow cutting the head off
a chicken just to make a child's toy. They might not assur it, because
"the gemara allows it", but they wouldn't tell you it's "ok" to do.)

Akiva

"assur l'hishtamesh b'kohen ... im lo machal al kach" (OH 128:45)

The Biur Halacha cites an opinion that fellow kohanim are permitted,
so that at family gatherings they can ask each other to pass the salt
without varifying mechillah in advance.

I'm curious, however, about Mrs. Cohen. Does she need to make sure her
husband is mochel every time she asks him to take out the garbage? Can
she get one blanket mechillah when she gets married? Can she presume
that marriage implies mechillah (taking out the garbage being standard
husbandly practice, especially for kohanim, who can view it as practice
for Trumas HaDeshen)?

Are there some tasks for which there's an implied mechillah, and others
for which there isn't?

David Riceman

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


[ 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         ]