Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 028

Friday, May 28 2004

• Re: Music during Sefira
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: time it takes to walk a mill
• VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #11, MC vo. 1 p. 100
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• sheitels and AZ
• Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #11, MC vo. 1 p. 100
• Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #11, MC vo. 1 p. 100
• water controversy
• Re:Kal v"chomer
• Re: sheitels and AZ

Sholom Simon cited R. Frand as saying that the issur of music during 
sefirah is not found in earlier poskim and is derived in the following way:
> 1. The Mishna Brurah rules that is someone is invited to a mitzvah sedua
> (perhaps a kiddushin, and/or the like) during the sefira it is permitted
> to attend, provided one does not dance.

> 2. A kal v'chomer that if one can not dance, one can not listen to music.

The problem with this kal v'chomer is that (because of the rule of da'yo
lavo min ha'din li'hos ka'nidon) it can prove an issur of music only
during a wedding or other simchas m'rai'us, but not an issur listening to
music at home or in the car. After all, the case of dancing is dancing at
a wedding. The concept of bais ha'mishteh and simchas m'reiyus is found in
Hilchos Aveilus S"A YD 391:2. The S"A does not specifically forbid music
during aveilus. According to the book "Mourning in Halacha," music during
aveilus is prohibited by Maraham Shick YD #368. He also quotes Sdei Chemed
(Pe'as HaSadeh, Aveilus 13). However the formulation of Gesher HaChayim
21:8:3 is not quite as broad, as he says: "he should not go to a place
where there is a band simply for a friendly get-together."

There is a big difference between a friendly get-together accompanied
by music, and listening to music at one's home. In the former case,
there is simchas m'rei'us, and the music enhances the simcha. In the
latter case, there is no simcha, just enjoyment.

Thus, while it is possible that we pasken like the Maharam Shick with
respect to music during aveilus, it is possible that this chumrah was
not applied to sefirah (or even the three weeks).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I'd like to ignore the practical issues (e.g. mitzva l'abeid avoda zara)
and address Rabbi B's suggestion on its merits. He asks:
> why not be mattir
> als mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu.

It's a pretty question, and to answer it I'll ask several more questions:

1. Why don't women make a birchas hamitzva before putting on their hats?

As we all know, the issur of wearing shatnez is derech hanaah, so,
for example, a merchant displaying his wares may don shatnez.

2. Why can't I wear a four cornered garment of shatnez with tsitsis,
arguing mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu?

3. It's also assur to walk around naked (usually, see, e.g., Mishna Brurah
2:1 for an exception), so why can't I wear any garment of shatnez using
the same argument?

4. Why don't I make a birchas hamitzva on getting dressed?

The answer to 2 and 3 is clear. Some mitzvos produce pleasure (you should
see my son eating maror!). Mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu refers specifically
to the spiritual pleasure of kiyum hamitzva, not the other pleasures
attendant on doing the mitzva. So wearing shatnez is still assur.

Rabbi B acknowledged that when he wrote:
> I think it is pretty reasonable to assume
> that were it not for the Torah' strictures, almost every frum woman would
> walk, ba'zman ha'zeh, bare-headed (the sevara does not apply, of course,
> to those who do not fall into this category, such as R"L chemotherapy
> patients). To wear the sheitel is thus purely l'shem mitzvah.

When I was little I used to think the din of dressing in bed was pretty
silly. If God can see into my room why can't He see under my blanket? Once
I became old enough to read the Rama (OH 1:1) I realized that it's not
God, it's a din it attitude. The mitzva is to walk around the house as
though you have an important guest present. In technical terms, it's a
din in kavod habriyos applied even when others aren't present.

Much as I hate to admit it, people get pleasure from appearing
respectable. That's why so many men strangle themselves with decorated
silken ropes. Issurei hanaah are assur even for non-physical pleasure.
We can see this from Rabbi B's example of kisuy hadam b'afar ir
hanidachas. Why doesn't the gemara just ask what sort of fool enjoys
covering blood with ashes? Because it knows that non-physical pleasures
are also hanaah, and, even in the teretz, it excludes only mitzvos.

When a woman puts on her hat before going outside it may be physically
uncomfortable, but she gets pleasure not only from the mitzva, but also
from looking like a respectable Jewish matron (think of all the other
uncomfortable clothes she wears for the same reason). That solves Rabbi
B's question.

What about birchas hamitzva. When I was young one of my rebbeim told me
we don't make a birchas hamitzva on giving tzedaka because it would make
the recipient feel bad. I would state a more general rule. We don't make
birchos hamitzva on mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro.

<<so why do we make one at weddings? that makes a good wedding - or
Shavuos - drasha, but it's too tangential for this posting, which is
already too long>>

Why not? Brachos are devices to make us concentrate on God. When doing
mitzvos bein adam lamakom that enhances performance of the mitzva. When
doing mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro that distracts from proper performance.

Both wearing clothes and wearing hats (whatever you believe the issur
to be) are dinim in kavod habriyos, i.e., they are bein adam lachaveiro.
So we don't make birchos hamitzva on them.

[Email #2. -mi]

> Shu" Chelkas Yaakov Inyanim Shonim #13 cites evidence that the principle
> of mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu (MLLN) applies even where there is hano'as
> ha'guf.

Yad Malachi (#397) disagrees, citing Ran Nedarim 15. In addition he
(#431) cites a machlokes whether MLLN is only bdi'avad, or also permitted
l'chit'chilllah.

David Riceman

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:13:23AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:                                 Some mitzvos produce pleasure (you should
: see my son eating maror!). Mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu refers specifically
: to the spiritual pleasure of kiyum hamitzva, not the other pleasures
: attendant on doing the mitzva. So wearing shatnez is still assur.

So what about my smaller suggestion:

Can we permit donating the wigs (assuming their issur) to non-Jewish
cancer patients on the grounds that such a donation would be lav leihanos?

AIUI, the bitul asei beyadayim doesn't apply if you're doing so to fulfil
another asei.

-mi

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< According to one of our local newspapers R. Chaim
Kanevsky ... participated in a wig burning and recited a beracha (without
shem u-malchut).>>>

Okay, so he left out the Shem. But what words DID he use? "Al Kiddush
HaShem"? "Al Biur Avodah Zara"? Anyone know?

Akiva Miller

At 01:13 AM 5/25/2004, David Riceman wrote:
>I'd like to ignore the practical issues (e.g. mitzva l'abeid avoda zara) and
>address Rabbi B's suggestion on its merits.  He asks:

Ee meshum ha, lo iriya - that is a safek mitzvas aseh, asher kvar dashu bo 
rabbim in the sugya of the modern techeles.

>> why not be mattir
>> als mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu.

>It's a pretty question, and to answer it I'll ask several more questions:
>1.  Why don't women make a birchas hamitzva before putting on their hats?

We do not make berachos on all Mitzvos Aseh at all times - to wit,
yeshivas sukkah without achilah.

>2.  Why can't I wear a four cornered garment of shatnez with tsitsis,
>arguing mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu?

See the cited Chelkas Yaakov that the mitzvah is on the kanfos, and
the beged is therefore hano'oh not associated with the mitzvah. This,
of course, does not apply to kisui rosh.

>3.  It's also assur to walk around naked (usually, see, e.g., Mishna Brurah
>2:1 for an exception), so why can't I wear any garment of shatnez using the
>same argument?

There is no positive command to walk around clothed. Were the requirement
to cover hair merely to avoid ervah the issues would be analogous,
but here there is a specific directive to cover the hair.

>4. Why don't I make a birchas hamitzva on getting dressed?

See above.

>Rabbi B acknowledged that when he wrote:

>> I think it is pretty reasonable to assume
>> that were it not for the Torah' strictures, almost every frum woman would
>> walk, ba'zman ha'zeh, bare-headed (the sevara does not apply, of course,
>> to those who do not fall into this category, such as R"L chemotherapy
>> patients). To wear the sheitel is thus purely l'shem mitzvah.

>Much as I hate to admit it, people get pleasure from appearing respectable.
>That's why so many men strangle themselves with decorated silken ropes.
...
>When a woman puts on her hat before going outside it may be physically
>uncomfortable, but she gets pleasure not only from the mitzva, but also from
>looking like a respectable Jewish matron (think of all the other
>uncomfortable clothes she wears for the same reason).  That solves Rabbi B's
>question.

Nope. That hana'ah is in appearance, As shteit in Artscroll Orlah (I
wrote it, so it is easy to cut and paste) 3:1:

The Gemara (Bava Kamma 101a-b, see Tosafos ad loc.; see also Pesachim
22b and Tosafos ad loc.) explains that in this sense orlah is unique,
as here the Torah explicitly prohibits an intangible, visual benefit
(viz., the pleasure of the garment's enhanced appearance as opposed
to the pleasure of the garment's protection, which does not derive
from its color). This unique prohibition is derived by a Baraisa (see
Sifra to Leviticus 19:23) from the verse in Leviticus (loc. cit.). The
Baraisa explains that although from the language: [its fruits shall be]
forbidden, they shall not be eaten - we would deduce only a prohibition
to eat orlah, from the seemingly superfluous earlier part of the verse:
and you shall treat its fruit as forbidden... [they shall be] forbidden
[to you] - we infer that it is forbidden to derive benefit from orlah, to
dye with orlah and to kindle a lamp with it. - i.e., the the recurrence
of the root krg (indicating prohibition) three times teaches that
there is a threefold prohibition on benefitting, dyeing and kindling
(Rav, Rash, Rosh). Tosafos (loc. cit.) elaborate that it would seem
that the prohibition on benefit would encompass prohibitions on dyeing
and kindling. However, since we might have thought that the intangible
benefit from the color is not forbidden, a separate derivation is needed
to teach the unique law forbidding this visual benefit Similarly, we
might have thought that the use of orlah as lamp fuel is permissible,
since the orlah is burned and destroyed in the process. The separate
derivation is therefore needed to teach that benefit that results from
the burning of orlah is also forbidden (Tos. Yom Tov).

I refer you also to the Y-mi in the last perek of Sukkah that kol,
mareh and rei'ach ein bahem me'shum me'ilah...

[Email #2. -mi]

At 12:38 PM 5/25/2004, David Riceman wrote:
>> Shu" Chelkas Yaakov Inyanim Shonim #13 cites evidence that the principle
>> of mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu (MLLN) applies even where there is hano'as
>> ha'guf.

>Yad Malachi  (#397) disagrees, citing Ran Nedarim 15.  In addition  he
>(#431) cites a machlokes whether MLLN is only bdi'avad, or also permitted
>l'chit'chilllah.

Afilu hachi, That would only render them forbidden b'yemos ha'geshamim, not 
at this time of year.

YGB 

"Sholom Simon" <sholom@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Using simple arithmatic, at the 20 min/mile rate, a person could walk
> a mil in 11-1/3 to 15-1/6 minutes. So why is a mil somewhere between 18
> and 24 minutes?

> One possible solution is that when halacha talks about "the average person
> walking a mil", what is really meant is "take the average distance a
> person can walk in 12 hours and divide accordingly". The assumption being
> that while an average person can walk 3 miles in an hour, over an entire
> day his rate will be lower because of stopping, resting, breaks, etc.

That is exactly the way the gemara does derive it. The gemara starts with
the premise that a person can walk 40 mill in a day, and simply divides
the day by 40 to get the time it takes to walk 1 mill. The question then
becomes how many hours a day this person is walking. The opinion that
a mill takes 18 minutes to walk assumes that the person doing 40 mill
is only walking 12 hours a day. The opinions that it's longer assume
that our dedicated traveller starts out at the crack of dawn and keeps
walking until it's too dark to go any further.

I think this is all in gemara pesachim, but I can't remember exactly
where. All I remember is that R Yehuda is the one who holds it takes
24 minutes to walk a mill.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[I think RZS is thinking of Pesachim 94a. -mi]

(This is not a repeat; I have been asked to attempt to restart the
series. I would appreciate it if someone in EY could get me the most
recent edition of the MC, as I only have the first two volumes - I would
gladly reimburse! I am forwarding the message to some off-list lamdonim
as well.).

The Shev Shmaitsa 1:1 writes that even though we hold safek orlah in Chu"l
is permissible, nevertheless, if there is a rov l'issur we follow the rov,
as that is not considered a safek. He cites Tosafos BB 24a as evidence,
as Tos. there write that were karov to be superior to rov we would be
required to follow its ramifications l'chumrah even in orlas Chu"l.

This seems difficult, as at the end of the first perek of Kiddushin we
learn that kol ha'meikel b'orlah, even though when it comes to EY if he
is a yachid k'neged rabbim we reject his position, we can rely on him
in Chu"l - but according to the SS why do we not follow the rov poskim
even when it comes to Chu"l.

VIDC?

This is a juicy one, and I hope we generate some banter, but al kol
panim, we will leave the question open until next Thurs. (l'parasha
Beha'alosecha).

YGB

RYGB wrote:
>The fact that a human hair sheitel may be nicer than
>a synthetic sheitel is noy mitzvah - lu yitzuyar esrog
>shel asheirah would be permitted, we could assume
>that one would be allowed to take a mehudar'dicke
>one even if it impresses his neighbors. Why not say that
>hu ha'din b'nidon didan?

I challenge you to find me one example where there is an inyan of
hiddur mitzvah by an *issur*. Al pi sevara, and this is of course just
speculation, hiddur issur does not make sense. The point of an issur is
to avoid doing something that is against retzon ha-Boreih. How you do it,
whether in a mehudar way or not, is irrelevant as long as you avoid the
prohibited actions.

>It is a mitzvah lishmo'a divrei chachamim (v'asisa al pie
>asher yorucha) to fulfill the d'rabbanan of Das Yehudis.

I believe it is a machlokes (maybe Rambam/Ramban?) whether issurim
derabbanan are considered mitzvos aseh or lo sa'aseh. You are assuming
according to one tzad of the machlokes.

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

On 23 May 2004 at 21:02, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M.  wrote:
> I would like, however, to approach this sugya for the moment azoi vi a
> Poilisher (remember the VIDC's, anyone?) and ask, why not be mattir
> als mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu. I think it is pretty reasonable to
> assume that were it not for the Torah' strictures, almost every frum
> woman would walk, ba'zman ha'zeh, bare-headed...
>          As we know from the sugyos, lulav, mikveh for a muddar
> hano'oh from water, etc.; where kitutei mekhtat shiurah is not a
> problem (which it is not here, a la R' Chaim by lechi shel asheirah),
> issurei hano'oh may be used for such mitzvos. The fact that a human
> hair sheitel may be nicer than a synthetic sheitel is noy mitzvah...

>I see a direct parallel between kisui ha'dam and kisui rosh.

Rambam Hilchos Lulav Ch, 8 Halocho 1:
    ..one of them was.. from a ashera that was worshiped... or an ir
    hanidachas, it is posul. If it was from AZ, he should nor use it
    lechatchilo, and if he did, he was yotze.

The AZ in this case is one that has no problem of kitutei mekhtat shiurah
so it should be muttar.
However, the Rambam paskens that that is all only Bedieved. Lechatchilo
it is certainly ossur to use.

Hu hadin benidon didon.

Akiva

There are two dinim in rov - bittul be-rov and haleich achar ha-rov. When
dealing with fruits in chu"l in which the majority are orlah, we are
dealing with bittul be-rov. Bittul be-rov is mevarer the safek. However,
when we are dealing with following poskim, we are utilizing the concept
of haleich achar ha-rov, which is not a mevarer but a course of action
to avoid paralysis. Bittul be-rov is mevarer the safek while haleich
achar ha-rov is not.

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

At 05:10 PM 5/25/2004, Gil Student wrote:
>There are two dinim in rov - bittul be-rov and haleich achar ha-rov....

The rov in Chu"l is not bittul b'rov - see the last mishnah in Orlah - it 
is helech achar ha'rov, kol d'parish me'rubba parish.

YGB 

I once heard that there is a disagreement between the Brisker Rav and
R. Moshe Feinstein about the squareness of tefillin.
RMF holds that since the gemara approximates sqrt(2) by 1.4 we don't
need to make our tefillin more square than that.
The Brisker Rav holds that one should make the tefillin as square as
modern technology allows. The fact that it is more square than those of
early generations doesn't matter.

It is possible that this same argument applies the use of magnifying 
glasses to see bugs in water.

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 5/27/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

RMB wrote:
>I didn't follow from your post why one would need a separate concept of
>QvC for pesuqim if it's a valid line of reasoning in general.

It seems to me that one can inquire ("make a chaqira") whether the list
of middot we have is meant to expand or restrict the number of tools we
have to derive halachot from psukim.

The assumption of RMB's question is that the middot *add* additional
principles to valid logical principles which mimeila can be used in
any reasoned discourse, including drishat hapsuqim. If that be true,
then including QvC in the middot has indeed added nothing, since all
valid svarot are already at our disposal. If it's svara, then it's not
a midda, and vice versa. This is exactly how RMB formulated his question.

It seems that the list of middot is meant to *restrict* the tools we have;
from among all valid logical and linguistic principles which exist,
which ones can be used to derive halachot from psuqim? Which svarot
are included in the middot? Well, QvC for one. It would seem from this
that there are svarot which may well be excluded from use for drishat
hapsuqim. Svara and midda overlap; some middot are svara, and some (but
it would seem not all) svarot are middot. A svara needs to be included
in the middot to be used for drishat hapsuqim, otherwise it can't be used.

It is instructive to point out that although QvC strikes us as the most
"logical" of the middot, it is surely not the only logical one. Binyan
Av, for example, is essentially argument by analogy: If something has
a certain property, then it is reasonable to presume that similar and
related things have that same property. RMB's question applies to BAv
in the same way that it does to QvC, and of course my answer is the same.

Saul Mashbaum

[RGS:]
>RYGB wrote:
>> The fact that a human hair sheitel may be nicer than
>> a synthetic sheitel is noy mitzvah...

>I challenge you to find me one example where there is an inyan of
>hiddur mitzvah by an *issur*. Al pi sevara, and this is of course just
>speculation, hiddur issur does not make sense. The point of an issur is
>to avoid doing something that is against retzon ha-Boreih. How you do it,
>whether in a mehudar way or not, is irrelevant as long as you avoid the
>prohibited actions.

Perhaps not. But the issue is peripheral - net, she would much rather go 
bare-headed.

>> It is a mitzvah lishmo'a divrei chachamim (v'asisa al pie
>> asher yorucha) to fulfill the d'rabbanan of Das Yehudis.

>I believe it is a machlokes (maybe Rambam/Ramban?) whether issurim
>derabbanan are considered mitzvos aseh or lo sa'aseh. You are assuming
>according to one tzad of the machlokes.

See ROY in Yabia Omer OC 4:4 d"h u'b'heyosi b'zeh who cites the Ritva, 
Meiri and Ran, etc. that MLLN is also in a d'rabbanan.

Unfortunately, I find that RSZA in Minchas Shlomo 1:51 suggests that if a 
kavanah "shelo lishmah" is mixed in with the kavanas mitzvah it may be 
madcheh the entire leniency of MLLN. Shucks! (But this is a big chiddush, 
and I do not think you can say it according to those who are mattir hano'os 
ha'guf in cases of MLLN.

[Email #2. -mi]

[RAA:]
>However, the Rambam paskens that that is all only Bedieved. Lechatchilo
>it is certainly ossur to use.

>Hu hadin benidon didon.

LAN"D once one has spent hundreds or thousands of $$'s on a sheitel, it 
is a matter of b'di'eved.

YGB 

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


[ 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         ]