Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 039

Wednesday, June 23 2004

• Re: is habitat for humanity muttar?
• Re: is habitat for humanity muttar?
• Re: immersing electrical appliances n the mikva
• Re: immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• Re: VIDC - murder, drowning
• Re: Civil Marriage-Gittin
• Re: immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• VIDC
• immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• Re: immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• Disputing Previous Generations and "HaTania"
• Re: VIDC - murder, drowning
• RE Immersing electricla appliances in the mikva: Avodah V13 #38
• Re: NYC water issue
• Re: NYC water issue
• New Water Psak
• New Water Psak
• RE: New Water Psak
• Fwd:
• Re: New Water Psak
• New Water Psak
• Re: New Water Psak
• Re: Disputing Previous Generations and "HaTania"
• Water Heter from Minhagei Marash
• Re: Disputing Previous Generations and "HaTania"
• Totally Safe Psak

On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 21:26 -0400, Gil Student wrote:
> When I worked at Citibank, the company (or division?) sponsored a family
> and basically, people went together and built a house, along with some
> professionals guiding them. I didn't participate for other reasons,
> but I do not recall hearing anything remotely religious about it. It
> was just building a house for an underprivileged family.


ok, to rephrase the Q.  As there goals are stated, would that present a
problem in regards to shituf/AZ issues.

Gil Student <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
> When I worked at Citibank, the company (or division?) sponsored a family
> and basically, people went together and built a house, along with some
> professionals guiding them. I didn't participate for other reasons,
> but I do not recall hearing anything remotely religious about it. It
> was just building a house for an underprivileged family.

The question still stands. Habitat for Humanity is a wonderful
organization and does not preach to its volunteers as far as I know and
your experience seems to bear this out. But they most definately are a
fundementalist Christian organiztion. When ex-President Carter started
working for them he made a point of it being part of his Christian charity
work and identified Habitat for Humanity as a Christian fundementalist
organization, IIRC.

However the question remains. Even if the work is so noble as to provide
homes for the homeless, can one work for a Christian organiztion, one
of whose primary goals is to sanctify the name of their god, even if
they do not do so in their day to day activity?

My gut answer is no.

HM

[RMLevin:]
> The majority of poskim require full immersion with R. Moshe's shittah
> being one of a few to be mattir. THis si according to a recent review
> of halachos on tevila by R. Daniel Neustadt in Yated Ne'eman.

Interesting... according to my ecollection, my LOR said that according
to those who hold that it is required, the keli should be taken apart
past the point that the average consumer would take it apart, and then
put back together again by a Jew, ie it loses the status of keli, and
regains it in the custody of a Jew. However he implied that he didn't
hold this requirement to be ikkar hadin.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

In Avodah V13 #38 dated 6/20/04 Elly Bachrach
<ebachrach@engineeringintent.com> writes:
> I am aware of R' Moshe's teshuva that the keli should be immersed but
> the electrical part need not be immersed, but as this is not always a
> practical solution (in fact, I don't know when it ever is a practical
> solution for urns), what are people doing?

I tovelled the whole urn including the electrical base, then shook the urn
and held it upside down and every which way to get as much water to drain
out as possible. I also dried the urn with a towel. After that I left it
unused for a week or ten days. When I dared to plug it in, it worked fine.

 -Toby Katz
=============

[RYGB:]
> We know that murder is one of the things that are not overriden by
> Pikuach Nefesh, because of the sevara of Mai Chazis: What did you see to
> lead you to conclude that your blood is redder than your friend's blood
> (Sanhedrin 74a et al)? On the other hand, when two people are drowning the
> Gemara in Horios (13a) suggests a hierarchy of who to save first. Thus,
> we see that in the Gemara in Horios we do reckon whose blood is redder;
> why, then, in the case of murder do we reject that assessment?

In one case you are deciding whom to kill, in the other case you are
deciding whom to save. The difference seems so obvious that it's hard
for me to really see what the question is.

In the first case, if you kill your friend, YOU are taking his life.
In the second case, if you fail to save your friend, HASHEM is taking
his life.

BTW not having learned this inyan inside, I am not certain exactly
what the question is in the second scenario (the only-one-can-be-saved
scenario), and would appreciate clarification.

Either that scenario is:

A) If you and a friend are both drowning, do you save yourself or do
you save him? (Let's say maybe there's only one life jacket)

or that scenario is:

B) Do you--a neutral third party--save Reuven first or Shimon first?

What scenario does the Gemara discuss, A or B?

If A--of course you save yourself.

If B--There is always a rule about which bracha to make first, which shoe
to put on first, and so on--so of course there has to be a "which person
to save first" rule. The alternative would be a distasteful randomness,
which seems quite antithetical to Torah. This of course is a meta-halachic
rather than a halachic observation.

 -Toby Katz
=============

(Discussion in Areivim [v13n177 - v13n179])

I wrote:
>There is disagreement among poskim ... Thus see the two
>detailed and lengthy discussions  by Rav A.A. Price in his Mishnat Avraham
>(found on www.hebrewbooks.org) in which he concludes that a get is
>required."

GL:
>... This was a major machlokes between Rav Henkin ZT'L (he required a
>get, no qualifications) and Rav Moshe ZT'L (he also requires a get,
>l'chatchila, but b'dieved would allow a child not to be considered a mamzer
>if later born to the mother who did not receive a get after dissolution of
>her civil marriage).

RYGH:
>I assume Rabbi Price's opinion follows that of the Rogatchover in this case
>- a get is required, but in its absence nevertheless not pegam of mamzeirus
>applies to a child born from the mother subsequent to her separation from
>her first "husband."
-------------------------------------------------
My reply:

Rav Price mentions in his first maamar that Rav Ychezkel Abramsky held
that no get was required and he wrote his maamar for the purpose of
explaining his disagreement with Rav Abramsky.

Rav Benzion Hai Uziel then wrote a strongly worded maamar in disagreement
the opinion of Rav Price.

Rav Price then replied in his second maamar to refute Rav Uziel (and he
mentions the Rogachover in that second maamar).

At the end of his first maamar he states:

"Aval bechol kidushei-arkaot harei he eishet ish LE-CHOL DEVARIM
ve-tzerichah get bichdei le-hatirah le-almah".  "

Today I asked a friend who is a musmach of Rav Price and was quite
close with him. He told me that Rav Price indeed held as Rav Henkin, z"l.

As a non-sequitur, a short bit of biographical information as to Rav
Price: In his haskamah to the first volume of Mishnat Avraham, Rav
Shelomo David Kahanah wrote that Rav Price was a talmid vatick of the
Sochaczev Yeshiva and that his style of learning thus followed the derech
ha-limud of the Avnei Nezer.

KT
Eliyahu

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> The majority of poskim require full immersion with R. Moshe's shittah
> being one of a few to be mattir. THis si according to a recent review
> of halachos on tevila by R. Daniel Neustadt in Yated Ne'eman.

Thanks for that resource - in his weekly shiur R' Neustadt discussed
tevilas kelim twice this year, but not this issue.

Did he make any mention of the chelkas yakov's opinion? I believe he
considers any device that operates while "attached" to the house via an
electrical cord as a part of the house, and holds no tevila is needed.

I did meet someone who asked R' Feurst (who always follows R' Moshe)
how to be tovel the typical urn i.e. one with the spigot near the base,
with the electrical components underneath the "pot": R' Feurst told him
to turn it upside down with the spout open, so that water woud fill the
urn. The base need not go in to the mikvah. Considering how these are
constructed, I wonder whether there is really disagreement between R'
Moshe and others - the metal pot is attached to the base, but why should
the (plastic) base require tevila?

This past Friday I asked R' Feurst myself (regarding the newer style
leChef urns, with the spigot at the top) and he said it requires tevila.

This morning I was tovel it, and shook it out as best I could. Now I'll
let it dry out!

elly

--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

1. Reb Elchanan in the beginning of Pesachim suggests that the hierarchy
in Horiyos is on mi-safek. Therefore, we only follow it passively (shev
ve-al ta'aseh) and not actively.

2. Alternately, you can say that the hierarchy is only a list of
priorities in order to avoid chaos. If there is no list of priorities
then there would be no way of determining how to act and everyone would
have to make it up on their own. This list gives us a way to deal with
that absence of guidelines.


I appreciate the argument and it is a good and appropriate one. However,it
seems to me that this is a case of missing the forest. We need to ask what
the underlying principle is behind the triage expressed in Horyos. Clearly
it is the very non-modern idea that heuman beings can be classified in
terms of their roles, and more importantly, that this classification is
actionable. Modern theories of triage are very uncomfortable with the idea
of rank-ordering lives and prefer rationing on the first-come-first-serve
or veiled forces, such as the Market. If you see it as a defined order of
triage, how can it be just a suggestion? We sometimes have to let chips
fall where they do, at least theoretically for purposes of learning, or
risk importing our discomfort with certain ideas into Kodesh Hakedoshim.

M. Levin

A Rav that I know holds the following:

An appliance that works only when plugged into the wall is basically an
appliance that works only when mechubar le-karka.

An object cannot be both a kaili and mechubar lekarka because a keili by
definiton can be transported and one that is mechubar lekarka cannot be.

Therefore, electrical appliances do not require tevilla since the Torah
requires tevilas keilim and these are not keilim.

(I think discussion about the potential/actual use of unplugged
coffeepots, tea kettles and somavars, may require tweaking of the above;
I do not think they "upshlug" the sevara. this may go to the issue of
rov tashmisho." I'm not sure.)

Noach Witty

Chana Luntz wrote:
> Not that this is true of all keilim, but most of the hot
> water urns I am aware of are made of plastic, with the only
> visible metal part being the heating element itself.  Are you
> referring to such urns, or to other ones that are made almost
> exclusively of materials that require tevila?

I am referring to urns that are made almost exclusively of materials
that require tevila.

While smaller electric water heaters in the US [FWIW: RnCL lives in the
UK. -mi] are often plastic, with only the heating element being metal,
urns are different. Conceptuallly they differ in that the water heater
simply heats water and shuts off, while the urn continues to maintain
the hot temperature. I assume there is some good reason why the urns
are all made of metal (here).

Two of the main designs in use consist of a metal pot attached at its
base to a bottom with a heating element . There is a spigot at the bottom
for obtaining the water. The third design I have seen is relatively new
(as in only 10 -15 years old, not 30 to 50!), and consists of a metal
pot completely enclosed in a plastic casing. The casing hides a tub
that runs up the side, so that a suction creating by a pumpable top can
be used to siphon water up the tube and out a spout at the top of the
plastic housing (I think people call this design the "pump pot").

by the way, this tube creates some questions regarding preparing this
pot for shabbos, as if it fills (even partially) with water when you fill
the pot, that water will not have been heated for shabbos, and could be
a problem if mixed with the heated water.

elly

--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

On 9 Jun 2004, Joel Rich noted that Monday's daf had a number of these
[HaTania's or HaT'nan's] "b'nichuta."

FWIW here are some factoids compliments of CD-ROM searches:

HaT'nan or V'HaT'nan appears in the Bavli 203 times.

HaTania or V'Hatania: 178 times.

Total of above: 382 times.

Of those 382, Rashi explains, as "b'nichusa,": tania--44 times, hat'nan--5
times (Yuma 69b, Hullin 85b and 136b, and Temura 10b twice.)

Zvi Lampel

Since we are discussing this, can someone help me understand the
curious Rashi on mai chazis. He says that if you kill another person,
you perform an aveira and loose all of his potential mitsvos but if you
allow yourself to be killed, you only loose your mitsvos and not have
the additional aveira.

Rashi seems to follow the logic in Horayos - priority in triage is
determined by the number and kind of mitsvos a person performs. But
wouldn't it extend to permitting for a man to save himself by killing
a woman or for a kohen by killing an istroel?

M. Levin

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:44:52 -0500 Elly Bachrach
<ebachrach@engineeringintent.com> Wrote:
>I am wondering what "normative Jewish practice" is regarding the tevila
>of electrical hot water urns and other keilim with components that are
>sensitive to water.

>I am aware of R' Moshe's teshuva that the keli should be immersed but
>the electrical part need not be immersed, but as this is not always a
>practical solution (in fact, I don't know when it ever is a practical
>solution for urns), what are people doing?

Please see the following summary that I found at: 
http://www.teaneckshuls.org/parsha/Vayikra/TazriaMetzora62.doc.
______________________________________________________________________________
 From Parshat Acharei Mot-Kedoshim Vol.10 No.30 Date of issue: 12 Iyar 
5761--May 5, 2001

      Tevilat Keilim - Part II by Rabbi Howard Jachter
                                         .   .   .

       Electric appliances

People often question Rabbis how to immerse electric appliances due to
concern that the Mikva water will damage the electric wiring. At least
three approaches appear in the Halachic literature. The most lenient (and
creative) approach is that of Rav Yaakov Briesch (Chelkot Yaakov 1:126)
and Rav Yitzchak Isaac Liebes (Teshuvot Bait Avi 114). They argue that
if the electric appliances are used only when they are plugged into an
electric socket, that they need not be immersed. They argue that since
the appliances are plugged into a socket, they are attached to the
ground and have the status of the ground, which one is not required to
be immersed (Mechubar LEkarka KEkarka Dami). Rav Moshe and Dayan Weiss
do not subscribe to this leniency and argue that electric appliances
must be immersed (see Pitchei Teshuva Y.D. 120:1 which seems to support
these rulings). However, they disagree regarding how much of the utensil
must be immersed. Dayan Weiss rules that the entire utensil should be
immersed. This is hardly surprising since in order for Tevila to be
effective, the entire utensil must be immersed at once.

Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe Y.D. 1-57-58) develops a very interesting approach
to this issue. He notes that Halacha mandates that only utensils used for
food preparation be immersed. Accordingly, Rav Moshe argues that only
that part of the utensil in which food is placed should be viewed as a
Kli Seuda, a utensil used with food. However, the part of the utensil
that contains the electric wiring need not be immersed, since it is not
a Kli Seuda. Hence, Rav Moshe rules that only the part of the utensil
comes in contact with food is required to be immersed.
                                             . . .
____________________________________________________________________

The Rav Gedaliah Felder, z"l of Toronto, paskened for me, that an
electricl appliance was mechubar lekarkah and need not be toivelled.

KT
Eliyahu

[RMPhyllostac:]
> From: Abe Pinter <pinter@phri.org>
>> As the following article suggests (from this week's Yated), our
>>poskim may not be doing us a favor by being lenient in this matter. >>

>Our poskim are supposed to pasken the halocho - not do us favors. 
>One should be careful what one implies about them.

There is a serious divergence in views of respected poskim about this 
matter. Even from those who are matir, I have been told that to 
filter is a hidur, and I know that at least some of the matirim have 
filters in their own homes. Even if they believe that it is better to 
strict in this matter, they may be hesitant to make a gezaira that 
the kahal cannot abide by. Pointing out other benefits of filtering 
may make such a gezaira more acceptable by the community at large.

Thanks for your interest.

===========================
Abraham Pinter, Ph.D.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE
at the International Center for Public Health
email: pinter@phri.org

R' Abe Pinter wrote <<< Even from those who are matir, I have been told
that to filter is a hidur, and I know that at least some of the matirim
have filters in their own homes. Even if they believe that it is better
to strict in this matter, they may be hesitant to make a gezaira that
the kahal cannot abide by. >>>

I do not understand how the concept of "a gezaira that the kahal cannot
abide by" is relevant in this case.

If a posek holds that a filter is not required, he is not making a
new gezeira.

If a posek holds that a filter *is* required, he is simply clarifying
the halacha, and is not making a new gezeira.

If a posek holds that a filter is not required, but that it is a hidur
to have a filter, then he is offering a suggestion, and is not making
a new gezeira.

The only case of making a new gezeira would be if he said, "A filter
was not required yesterday, but from today and onwards, everyone in this
kehilla is required to use a filter."

Akiva Miller

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/
New York Water II

My source tells me that R. Hershel Schachter has reversed his opinion
regarding water in New York. I have a copy of his in-house letter on
the subject but have been instructed not to post it verbatim. What R.
Schachter says is that if you can see a speck in water and the speck is
moving (i.e. from that movement you can tell that it is a bug) then that
is sufficient to render it visible to the eye as a bug. As proof, R.
Schachter cites Rashi, Eruvin 28a sv. tzir'ah:
    sheretz is from the language of shoretz (crawls) - something that
    moves on the ground but is not visible due to its small size, except
    through its crawling and stirring

This would effectively prohibit unfiltered water. My source tells me that
R. Yisrael Belsky is still ruling leniently on the water issue. But make
sure to ask your local rabbi.
- posted by Simcha @ 5:58 PM Comment (0) 

<<What R. Schachter says is that if you can see a speck in water and the
speck is moving (i.e. from that movement you can tell that it is a bug)
then that is sufficient to render it visible to the eye as a bug.>>

Sumpn's wrong here. Hakol modim that the chlorination kills them, and
that none of the ones that have been found at the tap have been alive.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> Sumpn's wrong here.  Hakol modim that the chlorination kills them, and
> that none of the ones that have been found at the tap have been alive.

Something else is wrong besides that. The quote from R' Schachter says
"IF". Why would anyone jump to a conclusion that ANY unfiltered water
is prohibited, if it's only a problem IF one can see a speck moving...".

In fact, it seems really irrelevant to even mention filtered or
unfiltered. Just say ANY water that has a moving speck is forbidden,
no matter where it came from, or what it's been through.

Avi Burstein

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
>Sumpn's wrong here.  Hakol modim that the chlorination kills them, and
>that none of the ones that have been found at the tap have been alive.

This has been my experience, although it may at times be difficult to 
distinguish between movement caused by subtle vibration of the vessel 
and Brownian motion from locomotion by live bugs (which I would 
expect to be much more rapid). The fact that the chlorine kills the 
bugs also makes it difficult to understand a second heter that some 
people are relying on, that the bugs  are allowed since they are 
nivre in the pipes, not in the reservoirs.

-- 
Abraham Pinter, Ph.D.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE
at the International Center for Public Health
email: pinter@phri.org

Gershon Dubin wrote:
>Hakol modim that the chlorination kills them, and
>that none of the ones that have been found at the
>tap have been alive.

That's not the point. If these bugs are assur alive then they are assur
dead. The only question is whether they are assur, and RH Schachter
says yes because you can tell from their movement (while alive) that
they are bugs.

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

From: Abe Pinter <pinter@phri.org>
<< The fact that the chlorine kills the bugs also makes it difficult to
understand a second heter that some people are relying on, that the bugs
are allowed since they are nivre in the pipes, not in the reservoirs.>>

The way I heard it (second hand from Rabbi Belsky) is that they are
nivra in the reservoirs, which he considers to be a bor.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:51:38 -0400 "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org> writes:
<<That's not the point. If these bugs are assur alive then they are assur
dead. The only question is whether they are assur, and RH Schachter
says yes because you can tell from their movement (while alive) that
they are bugs.>>

First, if you never see them alive you can't tell anything.  
But more so, if they are alive they are assur even if they originate in
a bor; if they're dead then once dead they're always mutar and there's
no chashash that they'll be shoretz al ha'aretz and return to your glass.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[RZL:]
> On 9 Jun 2004, Joel Rich noted that Monday's daf had a number of these
> [HaTania's or HaT'nan's] "b'nichuta."

> FWIW here are some factoids compliments of CD-ROM searches:
> HaT'nan or V'HaT'nan appears in the Bavli 203 times.
> HaTania or V'Hatania: 178 times.
> Total of above: 382 times.

> Of those 382, Rashi explains, as "b'nichusa,": tania--44 times,
> hat'nan--5 times (Yuma 69b, Hullin 85b and 136b, and Temura 10b twice.) 

Add-on to above:

And "V'HaTanni" appears 50 times, and "HaTanni" twice (none of which
are explained by Rashi as "b'nichusa").

ZL

[See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/waterMinhageiMarash.jpg>

-mi]

Aryeh

In a message dated 06/23/2004 6:37:31 PM EDT, hlampel@thejnet.com writes:
> FWIW here are some factoids compliments of CD-ROM searches:
...
> HaTania or V'Hatania: 178 times.
> Of those 382, Rashi explains, as "b'nichusa,": tania--44 times,
> hat'nan--5 times (Yuma 69b, Hullin 85b and 136b, and Temura 10b twice.) 

so tania is bnichuta 25% of the time? Wow?

KT
Joel

In an Areivim thread titled "Glatt", R' David Cohen asked <<< I always
thought that proper standard halchically was subjective, i.e. that once
I have received a psak from a reliable authority ... I am not taking any
kind of halachik risk. The halachic system (IMHO), once a valid psak has
been rendered turns that standard into my halachic norm, and is for me as
"totally a safe position" as any other. Am I incorrect? >>>

I remember discussing this in the very early days of Avodah. The Summer
1999 thread titled "Toward a Definition of Psak" is definitely on-topic,
but I couldn't find the exact quote I'm looking for.

Namely: Suppose the Sanhedrin paskens that a certain thing is allowed,
and people act on that psak (which is most definitely a real psak,
regardless of what one might say about our current "no real semicha"
situation). If the Sanhedrin later finds their psak to be in error,
they have to bring a korban for that.

Someone brought a source from Maseches Horios which pointed out that
this korban is m'chaper not only for the Sanhedrin's error, but it is
also m'chaper for the people's action.

To me, this indicated that despite everything one might say, NO psak
can EVER offer one a "totally safe position".

Am I remembering this correctly? Does anyone else remember it, or where
that quote might be?

Please note that the above is intended only to address the question of
*risk*. It does NOT refer to the question of *permission*. There most
certainly are situations where one is allowed to rely and act upon a
lenient psak, and the decision of a Sanhedrin is certainly among those
situations. My only point is that even in such cases, there *is* an
element of risk, despite the fact that halacha does not require us to
worry about that risk.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]