Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 059

Thursday, August 5 2004

• Cleaning up the world
• tisha baav and tshuva
• Re: tisha baav and tshuva
• Re: Height of people in chumash
• Re: tisha baav and tshuva
• Re: Height of people in chumash
• Re: Cleaning up the world
• Re: immersing electrical appliances in the mikva
• Re: Height of people in chumash
• 'Shivim Ponim Letorah'
• Re: Tosefet Shabbat
• Re: Cleaning up the world
• Re: Sanhedrin
• electricity on shabbat
• Re: Sanhedrin
• re: Shivim Ponim Letorah
• Re: Living in Israel requires work - not just Torah learning
• Re: Cleaning up the world
• nichum aveileim in Shul on Friday night
• Baruch Sheamar
• Re: nine days question
• re: minhag avoteichem
• RE: nichum aveileim in Shul on Friday night

From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> It would seem from the above that it does not matter how good or bad
> the goyim are.
> How does the Ramchal explain the Flood, Yonah or Amalek?

1. There were as yet no Jews
2.&3. as relates to Jews, either in their defense (Amalek) or as an
example (Nineveh).

> Thus there should be no obligation of tikun olam in terms encouraging
> the moral development of goyim?

Discussed here MANY times in the past.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
> Certainly one would not include include in kinnot a piyut something
> whose motivation is teshuvah rather mourning.

I just finished listening to a taped shmuos from Rav Matisyahu
Solomon whose central point is that the purpose of Eicha is hashivenu.
Simple aveilus has no point without leading to teshuva.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 07:43:36PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: I just finished listening to a taped shmuos from Rav Matisyahu
: Solomon whose central point is that the purpose of Eicha is hashivenu.
: Simple aveilus has no point without leading to teshuva.

Still, that makes 9 be'Av's availus about *leading to* teshuvah, not
teshuvah itself. To mix teshuvah into 9bA itself, at least before
chatzos, could well be skipping a critical step. In which case, RET
was right to assert:
: Certainly one would not include include in kinnot a piyut something
: whose motivation is teshuvah rather mourning.

Nor would the presence of a single pasuq, even repeated, raise questions
about saying Eichah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> I would also like to discuss the height of the people. The Gemara
> implies that he was a giant. However, achronim point out that in order
> for this not to be a blemish we have to assume that many of the Jews of
> his generation were very tall. In that case the height of Og was not as
> unusual as we think.

Except that Og supposedly towered over Moshe.  Supposedly Moshe was 10
amot tall, while Og's ankles alone were 30 amot off the ground. (Of course
he may simply have been wearing enormous platform shoes...)

> It was also pointed out to me that if we accept the midrash that the bed
> of Og was measured by the Amah of Og and not the normal amah then Og was
> a very disporportioned man. The typical person is 3-4 amot high in terms
> of his personal amah. Og was much taller in terms of his personal amah.

Unless the point is that he had an enormous bed, even for a person of his
size.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

In a message dated 8/3/04 4:03:00 PM EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> I just finished listening to a taped shmuos from Rav Matisyahu
> Solomon ...  Simple aveilus has no point without leading to teshuva.

See Rambam Hil. Taanis 1:2, and Hil. Oveil 13:12.

Umisaymim Btov, Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/3/04 4:15:32 PM EDT, zev@sero.name writes:
> Except that Og supposedly towered over Moshe.  Supposedly Moshe was 10
> amot tall, while Og's ankles alone were 30 amot off the ground....

See Chidushei Agodos haRashba on the Gemara in Brochos.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> In contrast the deeds of the
> nations don't add or subtract from the nature of creation nor do they
> cause G-d to be either more revealed or more concealed. Their deeds only
> affect themselves either positively or negatively -- whether physically
> or spiritually -- and they can strengthen or weaken their supervising
> angel. 

> It would seem from the above that it does not matter how good or bad
> the goyim are.

Not that it doesn't matter at all, but that it doesn't affect the state
of the world. The work of tikkun olam ( = berur hanitzotzot) doesn't
depend on them, and isn't helped by their righteousness or hindered by
their wickedness.

> How does the Ramchal explain the Flood, Yonah or Amalek?

He says that their deeds do "affect themselves either positively or
negatively -- whether physically or spiritually". When they are wicked,
the deserve and get punishment. When they do teshuvah, they are forgiven.
If they believe in the Torah, and keep the 7 mitzvot because they were
commanded to Moshe, then they even get Olam Haba. None of this is what the
Ramchal is talking about. When it comes to the work which is the purpose
of creation, they are bystanders, and nothing they do or fail to do
matters, except indirectly, as they help or hinder Am Yisrael in its task.

> Thus there should be no obligation of tikun olam in terms encouraging
> the moral development of goyim?

On the contrary. There is a huge obligation of tikun olam in terms of
encouraging the moral development of goyim. But that obligation is
entirely on us, not on them. A goy has to worry about his own moral
development, and has no mitzvah to educate his neighbour. A goy can be
a Noach, and when the flood comes he will build his tevah and be saved.
He doesn't have to care about his neighbours' behaviour, or try to improve
them and prevent the flood. But Avraham's mission is different, it's not
just to perfect himself but to perfect the whole world. The nitzotzot
that are among the goyim must be retrieved, not by the goyim but by us.
Which is why 'the Jews were only exiled among the goyim in order that
converts be added to them'.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Re: operations while power is turned off, R' Joel Rich wrote <<So if
the timer for a socket is off I could plug in a lamp that is in the
on position?>>

Without going into the question of what is permitted or forbidden, R'
Joel's case is not similar to that posted before.

A previous posting spoke of disconnecting a device while power is off.
R' Joel writes of connecting a device while power is off.

The first case is the prevention of a future action. Prevention (e.g.,
keeping someone from putting a light on or off) is not a ma'aseh. R'
Joel's case is the causing of a future action. One cannot learn apples
from oranges.

k"t.
David

Regarding the topic raised by Prof. Eli Turkel:

There is an oft-cited Gemara (Berachos 54b) which states that Moshe was
ten cubits (approximately fifteen feet) tall. This is difficult to accept
at face value for several reasons:

First, it is physically impossible. By that, I do not mean that there
are no records of any person that tall. I mean that it is physiologically
impossible due to the constraints of the human body. The tallest person
ever, Robert Wadlow, stood just under nine feet tall and suffered from
health problems as a result; he could only stand with the help of leg
braces, as his leg bones were not strong enough to support his body.

Second, the same Gemara continues to state that Moshe had a spear
that was ten cubits long, and when he leapt ten cubits in the air,
he could stretch out his spear and hit Og's ankle. This places Og's
ankle at a height of 30 cubits above the ground, which makes his total
height many hundreds of cubits - the height of a tall skyscraper. This
becomes even more biologically absurd, for many reasons. For example,
as a creature increases in size, its volume increases at a greater rate
than its surface area, which means that it is difficult to get rid of
body heat. Elephants have large ears to solve this problem, by running
blood through their flapping ears. For a person hundreds of feet tall,
even big ears wouldn't help!

Third, the same Gemara also states that Og "went and lifted a mountain
and carried it on his head towards the Jewish encampment. God sent ants
which ate a hole through the middle of the mountain, and it sank down
onto Og's neck. When he tried to remove it, his teeth extended to both
sides and prevented him from lifting it up." Surely it's obvious that
this doesn't make any sense at face value.

Fourth, what do we think the Gemara is - The Guinness Book of Records? Who
cares how tall these people were? Surely the Gemara wants to teach us
something more profound.

So, bearing all this in mind, it comes as no surprise to discover
that Rashba explains that this Gemara is not to be taken literally
and is trying to convey a deeper meaning. Rav Mordecai Kornfeld,
shlita, has an excellent exposition of the Rashba's explanation at
<http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/archives/chukat58.htm>.

[Nothing like referring the uncle to the nephew's answer! -mi]

But if Og wasn't several hundred cubits tall, how tall was he? The Torah
states that his bed measured nine cubits long. Rashi states that these
were nine of Og's cubits. The commentaries on Rashi explain that Rashi
is saying this to reconcile the verse with the Gemara. But a person who
is nine of his own cubits tall would be hideously disproportionate -
his arms would stretch only as far as the elbows are on a normally
proportioned person!

(Every person is approximately four cubits tall, in his own cubits. This
is easy to demonstrate. Stretch out your arms - the distance from
fingertip to fingertip is the same as your height. Now bend your arms at
the elbow and bring your fingertips to touch - you'll see that they just
about meet. This means that your cubit - the distance from fingertip to
elbow - is one-quarter of your height. I have difficulty understanding
why so many sources state that an average person is three cubits tall. I
just noticed that Encyclopedia Talmudis has extensive discussion on
different types of cubits, so I'll look there.)

So, as Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (2:42) concludes, we must take the nine
cubits of Og's bed as being measured by the cubits of an ordinary person.
This would still place Og as being about fourteen feet tall, which is too
much to accept. However, Rambam also states that the beds in those days
were about a third longer than the person for whom they were intended,
and Og was thus around six cubits tall.

There's one further point to take in consideration - way back in history,
people were generally much shorter - see how small are the suits of
armor in old British castles! So, if the average height back then was
about five feet, then a cubit was fifteen inches. Multiply this by six,
and that gives a height of seven and a half feet for Og - an extreme
height (especially in those days), but one that is still found today
with certain basketball players!

The only remaining difficulty with all this is why Rashi and other
commentaries seem to take the Talmud in Berachos quite literally. Perhaps
they didn't, and they were just following the principle of playing out
an allegory to its fullest, a concept discussed by Ben Yehoyada to the
Gemara in Zevachim 113b about the re'em.

Kol tuv,
Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

SBA:
>> Since when does 'Shivim Ponim Letorah' mean 70 different
>> derochim???????

RHM:
> What does it mean?

AFAIK, it is an expansion of "Pardes" - [Pshat, Remez, Drush, Sod],
in the way we learn and darshen theTorah.

BTW I did a BI search and the only Chazal mentioning SPL is Zohar.
[It almost qualifies to be added to our Phantom Maamorei Chazal list.]

SBA

In  Avodah V13 #58 dated 8/3/04  David Shabtai <david.shabtai@gmail.com> 
writes:
> In terms of tosefet Shabbat - there is a teshuvah of the Koshoglover Rebbe
> (Eretz Zvi (Frommer)) where he explains that since 'everybody' comes
> to shul before shekiah to daven minchah - they have effectively stopped
> doing melacha - and even without any declaration have accepeted tosefet
> shabbat. This is somewhat strange since these very people are about to
> daven minchah shel chol on tosefet shabbat, but he does not feel that
> that is a problem. 

IIRC a woman can make a hefsek tahara after benshing lecht--so there is one 
more instance of doing something Friday-ish even though you have already 
accepted Shabbos.

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

>> Thus there should be no obligation of tikun olam in terms encouraging
>> the moral development of goyim?

> Discussed here MANY times in the past.

Would appreciate help finding it as I couldn't find relevant material
in the archives. R' Aryeh Kaplan also does not provide sources for the
Ramchal's passage that I quoted. I would assume that this hashkofa is
kabbalistic and doesn't have any obvious sources in chazal or the standard
rishonim. - all information to the contrary would be very helpful.

Just asked Rav Michel Shurkin about this. He asked Rav Soloveitchik
about the status of goyim. The reply he got was "There are three things
for which I don't have a clear hashkofa - goyim, irreligious Jews and
secular studies.

Daniel Eidensohn

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> AISI only pre-churban Drashos could create Halachah. IOW you need a bona
> fide Sanhedrin to make Halacha out of drashos.

See Tshuvos HaRambam ed. Blau #286, esp. footnote 10.

David Riceman

relevant to some recent discussions on electricity From a shiur I recently
attended: (note we are only talking about devices like motors that don't
have a incadescent heat source - for those there are only prohibitions)

CI: Boneh (Torah)
others: Molid
RSZA: neither Boneh nor Molid - general rabanan prohibition

there was correspondence between RSZA and CI

RSZA: how is electricity different from putting together a piece
      which is made to be put together and taken apart which is not assur?

CI: in a chair one can see each individual piece even after they are
     put together. opening a switch puts "life" into the device

RSZA: How is opening a switch different than opening a door?
      What is the difference between a motor/generator and a
      water or wind mill?

CI: The purpose of a door is to close the empty space. The purpose of
     a switch is to start the motor. It changes the wires to an
     active appartus for running the motor.

It is different than a water/wind mill because the wires are internal
while the wind/water are external to the device RSZA disagreed since
neither the water nor the electricity are changed by going through the
device and so internal/external doesn't make a difference.

Later RSZA asked how electricity is different than water in pipes and
then opening the faucet. CI again responded that electricity gives "life"
to the motor as distinct from water.

Hence, according to CI there is a major chiddush in that giving "life"
to a device on shabbat is prohibited by boneh.

There is also an argument between RSZA and others in understanding the CI:

According to RSZA interpretation of CI the important factor is not the
physical closing of the switch but rather making the circuit capable
of having an electric current. Others disagree and explain CI that the
important factor is the physical closing of the switch and making a
closed circuit which is Boneh.

This argument of what CI means has practical applications (according
to CI); Can one start an electrical appliance attached to the circuits
which are now shut off by a shabbat clock? Also can one open a switch?

According to RSZA in CI only if one immediately starts the motor is there
a problem. Hence, if the circuit is now off then it is not prohibited
from the Torah. According to the other theory one is "boneh" the
circuit by closing the switch even if there is no current in the wires.
Whether opening a switch is "Soter (al monat livnot)" is also debatable.

(not in the shiur but another difference maybe in wireless circuits
where there is no physical wires to complete but one is still enabling
a current to flow).

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
> The idea that the power to make new drashos ended with the Sanhedrin must
> be modified to say that the halachos resulting from such drahsos became
> obligatory upon all of Klal Yisrael--which is not an issue of power to
> make drashos, but of the authority of Sanhedrin.... Viz.:(from Dynamics
> of Dispute, of course, pp. 257-259): Bava Metsia 54b, where Abbaye
> solves an ibaya through a gezeyra shavva.

> Uh oh ... a gezeyra shavva?! Okay, maybe this indicates he had a kabballa
> from Sanhaedrin. Need to find another example...

This is a problem regardless of this debate. We're told in a beraisa
already that no new gezeiros shava can be accepted, they must come from
mesorah. So regardless of whether other forms of derashah could still
have been created at the time of that beraisa, it was impossible for
the g"sh to have been Abayei's invention.

As for the possible loss of halachic authority when the Sanhedrin left
the lishkas hagazis, here's a possible data point.... The move happened
around the same time batei Hillel veShammai needed a bas qol to tell
them to hold like Beis Hillel. Mind you had the normal Sanhedrin rules
applied, one would know azlinan basar rubba. Why the bas qol unless
there was reason to question the applicability of the old rules? OTOH,
one could equally argue that the bas qol meant that the Sanhedrin's
authority hadn't changed when it moved off Har haBayis as argue that
only the din rov still applied.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' SBA wrote <<< I did a BI search and the only Chazal mentioning SPL is
Zohar. [It almost qualifies to be added to our Phantom Maamorei Chazal
list.] >>>

Would you accept Avos 3:15? "V'hamegaleh panim baTorah shelo kahalacha"
-- I'll admit that the number is missing, but it certainly shows that the
Torah has more than one panim, at least a few which are not kahalacha,
and presumably more than one which *is* kahalacha.

Akiva Miller

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Chasam Sofer (Sukkos 36b)...                              It appears to me
> that R' Yishmael did not apply the verse "you should gather your grain"
> -- that one should work -- except for those dwelling in Israel when
> the majority of Jews live there. In such a case farming itself is an
> expression of the mitzva of settling the land by bringing forth its holy
> fruit. ... Thus a person in Israel -- who wants to exclusively learn Torah
> and doesn't want to farm -- is like one who says that he doesn't want to
> put on Tefilin because he is studying Torah. It is possible that this is
> also true concerning all occupations which help develop society -- that
> they are included in the mitzva of settling Israel....

What else would you expect from the one who coined the phrase "Torah
va'Avodah"?

-mi

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Derech HaShem (2:4:8-10): When the world was divided into 70 nations,
> G-d placed 70 angels to watch over them and supervise them. Thus G-d only
> watches over the nations in a general manner....

Limited HP, with the assertion that non-Jews only get hashgachah minis.

This means that the state of the nation, the "min", does determine its
fate. Thus explaining Yonah's mission to Nineveh, Ovadiah's to Edom,
Yechezkel's to Mitzrayim, etc...

This statement only applies after Migdal Bavel, so dor hamabul (for
which the same answer would apply anyway) are not included.

>        ... Consequently G-d has made the correction and improvement of
> creation totally dependent upon the Jews. Thus in a manner of speaking
> He has made His providence dependent the deeds of the Jews. Therefore
> their deeds can bring forth His light which brings about change or cause
> His light to be concealed and held back. In contrast the deeds of the
> nations don't add or subtract from the nature of creation nor do they
> cause G-d to be either more revealed or more concealed. Their deeds only
> affect themselves either positively or negatively -- whether physically
> or spiritually -- and they can strengthen or weaken their supervising
> angel....

> It would seem from the above that it does not matter how good or bad
> the goyim are.

It doesn't matter to the fate of the universe, or of other
olamos. However, "their deeds ... affect themselves ... whether physically
or spiritually..."

> Thus there should be no obligation of tikun olam in terms encouraging
> the moral development of goyim?

This is more difficult, as it's the olam being repaired and we just said
their actions do not impact the olamos in the way ours does. Perhaps
"only" as it impacts themselves and they themselves are within the world,
repairing their souls is part of tiqun olam. I dunno.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R. Akiva Miller asked about the minhog in some places to do a form
of 'nichum aveilim' in Shul on Friday night before mizmor shir liyom
haShabbos, being that often that place in davening is not reached until
some time after shkia.

I would like to throw out the following possibilities -

1) Perhaps we could safely assume that this minhog (I assume it is an
old and venerable minhog, though I don't have mareh mekomos re it's
antiquity - does anyone have any such info ?) predates the Tzefas minhag
of 'Kabbolas Shabbos' with licha dodi and various mizmorim. If so,
perhaps in the old days, it was done earlier vis a vis shkia, as the
tzibbur didn't have to wait to finish that part of 'Kabbolas Shabbos'
before doing it. The new Tzefas minhog may have introduced the delay
that is seen today, at least partially, as the nichum aveilim remained
in it's old position (right before mizmor shir), while new recitations
were introduced before it.

2) Even if it is done after shkia in some places, perhaps since/if it
is still bein hashmoshos rather than vadai laila then, there is a mokom
to allow it. (Some) people are loath to just 'drop' venerable minhogim
lightly. If these same Shuls (at least for the most part I believe) still
maintain the ancient minhogim of making kiddush and havdoloh in Shul on
Friday night and Motzei Shabbos, they evidently are not the type to easily
jettison old minhogim, so it's no surprise that they continue this minhog.

Additionally, I am curious as to the practice of this minhog today. AFAIK,
it is practiced in large Eastern European Ashkenazic Shuls, and perhaps
some 'Yeshivish' minyonim. Is it practiced at all among other groups,
such as ', Yekkes', Oberlanders, Sepharadim / Eidos Hamizrach, Hassidim,
Teimanim, etc.? How widespread is it ?

Mordechai

The M"B brings down (51:1) that this was a takannah of anshei knesset
hagdola based on a petek from shamyim. I always assumed this was a well
known medrash but am unable to find a trace of it. The yichaveh daat
has a tshuva (3:3) which seems to imply disagreement as to who was even
mtaken baruch sheamar.

Anyone have any info on this or where the M"B got it from?

KT
Joel Rich

R' Aryeh Stein wrote <<< According to RSZA, we accept shabbos *not*
when Psalm 92 is recited, but rather when the tzibbur proclaims "Bo-ie
Challah, Bo-ie Challah" - this is our welcoming shabbos. >>>

Mishneh Brurah 261:31 quotes that Derech Chachma as saying that too,
but there are other views as well. See that MB, and also the thread "The
Great Blackout and Kabbolas Shabbos" from almost exactly a year ago,
in Avodah 11:55-57.

Akiva Miller

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< In fact there is nowhere in Shas that the
establishment of a fixed calendar is mentioned. Further it was never fixed
in our sense of a computer program since many centuries there were still
arguments between R. Saadyah Gaon and the Gaon of EY over details. >>>

I once had the following question: If the date of Yom Tov is dependent
on Kiddush HaChodesh, and we do not have Kiddush Chodesh today, then
how do we have a date for Yom Tov today?

Perhaps we should have two days of Yom Tov even in Eretz Yisrael, to
cover both possiblities ofwhich day ought to have been Rosh Chodesh. Or
maybe lack of Kiddush Hachodesh means that Yom Tov really doesn't exist
at all today. Or maybe Rosh Chodesh should be the day after the molad
without any exceptions.

But we don't follow any of those. Why? What *is* the determinant which
allows us to do what we're doing?

The answer I found was in Rav Eliyahu Kitov's Sefer HaTodaah. Volume 1,
Page 230 of the translation ("The Book of our Heritage") as translated
by the father of listmember R"n Katz, reads: <<< ... Hillel, the Nasi
(prince), grandson of Rabi Yehudah the Nasi ... He and his Beit Din ...
sanctified in advance all the new months to be observed in accord with
their calculation, and the sanctity of Rosh Chodesh therefore adheres
to every Rosh Chodesh, when it arrives in accord with our calendar... >>>

Unfortunately there is no source given for that statement, but it answers
my question very well. How else can we observe Yom Tov properly? Someone,
at some point, *must* have been mekadesh our months long in advance.

If the Geonim disagreed about which day was Rosh Chodesh, that does not
prove that the calendar <<< was never fixed in our sense of a computer
program >>>, it only proves that some details may got a bit lost in the
transmission through the doros. Rather, our observance of Yom Tov proves
(to my understanding) that it *was* <<< fixed in our sense of a computer
program >>>.

Akiva Miller

>> R. Akiva Miller asked about the minhog in some places to do a
>> form of 'nichum aveilim' in Shul on Friday night

> I am curious as to the practice of this minhog today.... Is it
> practiced at all among other groups, such as ', Yekkes'...

I'm not following this thread so closely, so this might not be what
you're talking about, but in Breuer's shul, they do have an aveil walk
down the aisle in shul on Friday night to give everyone a chance to say
haMakom.

Avi Burstein

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


[ 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         ]