Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 072

Thursday, February 3 2005

• Re: Electricity on Shabbat
• Re: Electricity on Shabbat
• Re: Electricity on Shabbat
• Re: Electricity on Shabbat
• Re: Electricity on Shabbat
• WADR to the Rambam?
• Re: Seudat Purim on Friday
• RE: Mohel May Have Given Babies Herpes
• abortion
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: A of the U
• Age of U
• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Musasr and Kabalah
• Musasr and Kabalah
• Re: Electricity on Shabbat
• Gedolim who attended college

RRL:
> Which is why I said, "In normal situations". I would think that those
> tenants who do not have the option to restrict themselves to the stairs
> would not be considered to be in a "normal" situation.

> I'm trying to understand the reasons for being mekel, because I see that
> is the minhag. I'm not trying to assur this elevator specifically, or
> any elevator in general.

1) "Normal" does not mean "young, healthy, and completely independent."
Having a baby, a toddler, a double stroller, associated necessary
paraphernalia, and perhaps a recalcitrant preschooler who needs to be
cajoled up every step is quite normal (it is also normal to be pregnant
plus all of the above). Growing old is a very normal process as well,
and many elderly people would have great difficulty climbing 6, 8,
or 10 flights of stairs.

2) I know very little about halacha, but it seems to me that within the
five seconds that the door will remain open anyway, absolutely nothing
practical or even perceptible happens as a result of breaking the electric
eye beam. Does that make a difference?

 - Ilana

RRL:
> Also, I don't see why this would be psik reisha d'lo nicha lei,
> I would think it's psik reisha d'nicha lei.

Within five seconds it is lo nicha lei because the door stays open no
matter what.

- Ilana

>1) "Normal" does not mean "young, healthy, and completely independent."
>Having a baby, a toddler, a double stroller, associated necessary
>paraphernalia, and perhaps a recalcitrant preschooler who needs to be
>cajoled up every step is quite normal (it is also normal to be pregnant plus
>all of the above). Growing old is a very normal process as well, and many
>elderly people would have great difficulty climbing 6, 8, or 10 flights of
>stairs.

I understand that too. Someone who has "great" difficulty to climb up 6,
8, or 10 flights of stairs could very will be in a "great" need. That's
why I didn't really specify what is "normal", I just gave an example of
someone who probably doesn't have an excuse -- I know in many buildings
people who live on "high" floors take shabbos elevators Friday night,
when they don't seem to have any excuse, and just don't want to walk up
the stairs. I'm trying to understand the heter for people like that in
a modern elevator.

I don't think we're disagreeing, I am not not including the exceptions
in my question, just the general case.

>2) I know very little about halacha, but it seems to me that within the five
>seconds that the door will remain open anyway, absolutely nothing practical
>or even perceptible happens as a result of breaking the electric eye beam.
>Does that make a difference?

I think RMB claims that since nothing perceptible happens, and there
is no closing or opening of circuits because it's all on a microscopic
level (which I"m not sure this is since I haven't had a chance to
research Otis elevators), it is possible it isn't assur. However, as
I stated in a previous e-mail, RMF in YD(1):173 states that it's assur
to set off sensors, and since he holds electricity is assur d'oraita in
general, he would hold this is assur. RSZA holds that though there is
no specific issur against using electricity (d'oraita or d'rabanan),
one should not use it except in tzorech gadol. Also, I don't see why
this is would be psik reisha d'lo nicha lei, I would think it's psik
reisha d'nicha lei. It seems, at least according to these two opinions,
that perceptible change shouldn't make a difference.

I am sorry if I do not be respond quickly over the next few days, as
I'm going to New York for a chasunah.

Shabbat Shalom
 -Russell

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:31:48 -0500, Moshe & Ilana Sober
<sober@pathcom.com> wrote:
> RRL: Also, I don't see why this would be psik reisha d'lo nicha lei, I would
> think it's psik reisha d'nicha lei.

> Within five seconds it is lo nicha lei because the door stays open no matter
> what.

Having the sensor on, in general, is nicha lei. Even if you don't care
about if it goes or not this time (which still isn't that you DON'T
want it to happen, just you don't care if it happens), you DO want it
to be on after the 5 seconds. Being on before 5 seconds is the only
way that it could be on after 5 seconds, so you do want it on now.

[Email #2, in reply to RML:]

>The general approach to these cases now is to permit it based on the
>psik reisha dlo nicha lei. The same applies to lights that go on when
>you walk by or chimes in certain alarms when you passs by. Electricity
>potentially being midrabanan or a minhag cetainly helps to rely on this.

[R Russell Levy:]
>But is this a case of psik reisha d'lo nicha lei? A shiur I heard online 
>by Rabbi Willig defined d'lo nicha lei to be something you wouldn't want 
>to happen if it was a weekday. Wouldn't someone want the sensor working 
>on a weekday?

You are correct in that there exists such an understanding but it is
rejected by Tosafos in Shabbos 113 ( and elsewhere) and Be'er Halacha
320. In practice, it does not matter whether you don't want it or
don' care about it. In addition, based on the precedent in 320, 18,
the contemporary poskim follow the policy of using whatever avaialble
leniences (snifim)to add to the concept of psik reisha dlo nicha lei
and to permit in individual cases. I know this by experience but I also
found this understanding in R. Rybiat's '39 melochos'.

M. Levin

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 09:18:35AM -0500, Russell Levy wrote:
: I think RMB claims that since nothing perceptible happens, and there
: is no closing or opening of circuits because it's all on a microscopic
: level (which I"m not sure this is since I haven't had a chance to
: research Otis elevators), it is possible it isn't assur. However, as
: I stated in a previous e-mail, RMF in YD(1):173 states that it's assur
: to set off sensors, and since he holds electricity is assur d'oraita in
: general, he would hold this is assur...

Kindly remember (as RRL was medayeiq) I raised a possibility, not asserted
a conclusion. That said...

Hakol modim that killing a bug is assur on Shabbos. But if the bug is
a mite that can't be seen by the human eye, it's not. So, perhaps even
according to RMF, if everything is solid state and invisible it would
still be muttar. The metzi'us was not popular design (if even possible)
until well after the closing of IM YD(1).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:25:38 -0500, somebody had the boldness to write
on Avoda:
> It's interesting that you bring up the Rambam. Philosophically, the
> Rambam was a religious rationalist. His damning attacks on people who
> held ideas he regarded as primitive so infuriated his opponents that
> they proscribed parts of his code and all of The Moreh Nevuchim. Look,
> Rambam was a great sage. That doesn't mean that everything he said or
> did was right. Interestingly, Abderrahmane Badawi, a Muslim professor
> from Kuwait University (l'havdil), declared: "I regard Maimonides first
> and foremost as an Arab thinker.?" This sentiment was echoed by Saudi
> Arabian professor Huseyin Atay, who claimed that "if you didn't know he
> was Jewish, you might easily make the mistake of saying that a Muslim was
> writing." That type of compliment, to me, isn't very complimentary and
> should indicate the Rambam's radical views in the area we are discussing.

I would just like to publicly register my protest and indignation at
(what I perceive as) a slight to the Rambam's honour.

The above may be your (and some Muslim's) opinion on the subject, but
I sure hope it's not the opinion shared by the bulk of world Jewry.

The Rambam does not need my approval, and I'm not capable of lauding
him adequately. I do know that "From Moshe to Moshe there was none as
great as Moshe" is generally applied to the Rambam.

The Rambam's Yad is the basis for normative halacha.

Etc.

 - Danny

[I didn't think that echoing Rabbeinu Yona's sentiment about the Rambam
necessarily warranted a macha'ah. For that matter, much later sources
such as the Gra and RSRH are among those who advise people away from
the Rambam's hashkafah. Had I thought that pointing out that the Rambam
was a contraversial source for these things was itself contraversial,
I would have sent the post back for editing. -mi]

> When Purim falls out on Friday when is the proper time to have seudat Purim?
> Morning? Afternoon? Or closer to Shabbat and combine both meals into one?

The Shulchan Aruch says in 695:2 that it needs to be done in the morning
because of Kavod Shabbat.

- Danny

> The question I have is, how does this jibe with the concept that you
> cannot get harmed from a mitzva.

I am pretty sure that we discussed this on Avodah before. IIRC, there
are many "exceptions" to the concept of "sh'luchei mitzva aino nizakin."
For instance, if one is not performing the mitzvah 100% lishmah, it may
not help. (Which may explain why Hevel was killed after bringing a korban
to HKBH.)

Or if one is doing a mitzva that includes engaging in dangerous activity,
"sh'luchei mitzva aino nizakin" may not help. WRT a baby getting g'malt,
I suppose this qualifies as inherently dangerous, and "sh'luchei mitzva
aino nizakin" wouldn't necessarily apply.

KT,
Aryeh

[Micha, on Areivim, during a debate about whether we should support
civil laws banning abortion:]
> Most acharonim who have published on the subject would consider abortion
> not to be murder. As I wrote, assur, even livnei No'ach, but not murder.

As I understand the Sugya, for a Ben Noach to commit the abortion it is
pretty clear that it is retzicha.(see Rambam Milochim 9:4).

i> OTOH, killing benei No'ach, or even adnei hasadah is retzichah. (Which
i> ay mean that killing an orangutan is safeiq piqu'ach nefesh?!)

What! There is a Mishneh in Kilaim 8:5 that Rabbi Yose holds that a
deceased Adnei Hasoda gives off Tumah to the whole tent like a human
being, but we don't pasken that way. Secondly even Rabbi Yose did not
mean to say he is human for all purposes. See the Bartnura there that
there is a special inclusion for Tumah to include them. Third, not all
sources identify Adnei hasadeh as an orangutan.

Regarding a Ben Noach it is also not so clear that there is an Issur
Retzicha D'oreisa for a Yisroel. See uncensored editions of Rambam
beginning of Hilchos Retzicha.

Kol Tuv,
Moshe Schor

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote <<< It is to be assumed that together
with the sod ha'ibbur the period of the average molad was given to Moshe
at the time of Yetzias Mitzrayim. It is relatively easy to compute with
and without the 165y and see which one works. --- Only I am not going
to do it! >>>

Okay, well, then maybe I'll volunteer!

But first, let's get the ground rules agree upon...

R' Michael Poppers suggested <<< there is no connection between molados
and BCE chronology unless we have some mesorah from CHaZaL on the Molad
Tishrai for a particular event (e.g. the first Purim, or Alexander the
Great meeting Rabbi Shimon) during the time period in question. >>>

Would Molad Nisan for the month of Yetzias Mitzrayim meet these criteria?

My proposal is this: Though it is not explicit in the Chumash, I
understand that it is generally accepted that 15 Nisan of that year was
on a Thursday, in which case Rosh Chodesh Nisan would also have been on
Thursday. I'll admit that there's quite a bit of wiggle room for when
the molad would have occurred and still have 1 Nisan on Thursday. Even
so, it would be interesting to see in what part of the week that molad
did occur, and see how close to Thursday it was. This, as RYGB writes,
is simple arithmetic.

If the chevra thinks that this is a worthwhile thing to calculate, I'm
willing to do it. (Actually, I'll write a short Basic program to do it
for me, and y'all can peer review it.) But first I must ask: Exactly
which year do we want to look at?

My first inclination is to calculate the molad which was exactly 3317
years before the upcoming Pesach. That would point to the year commonly
referred to as 2448. But from what I recall, some disagree with that,
and we should actually look at the molad which was in 2449, only 3316
years ago. (I'm pretty fuzzy on the difference between those two, but
IIRC that one is the Seder Olam, and the other is "everyone else".) Before
I do the math, is there a consensus on which of those to use?

Second, it is clear to me the Rav Schwab's calculations suggest that "the
gap" was of 168 years, and so we should actually be looking at the Molad
Nisan of 3485 (or 3484) years ago. Is that clear to others as well? Or
is there a "better" number than 168 to use? If we do calculations to
include any number from 165 to 168, the results will be meaningless.

Akiva Miller

Chana Luntz wrote:
> [RYGB's unnamed correspondant:]
>>> First of all, this approach is dangerous because it can cause its adherents
>>> to read things into Chazal and Rishonim that are not there in order to
>>> satisfy their mandate of legitimizing. And second, we follow our great
>>> teachers in their approach to milchamto shel Torah. When it comes to
>>> legitimizing, Rashi and Tosafos didn't do it. They fought tooth and 
>>> nail.
>>> Rava and Abaye didn't do it. R' Meir and R' Yehuda didn't do it. Beis
>>> Shammai and Bais Hillel didn't do it. Neither should we.

> I just don't understand why *this* needs to trigger a crisis of faith
> when we have Torah she baal peh, long before any of this science,
> telling us that none of this is straightforward (sure the Xtian's
> problem I understand, but they don't have TSBP). Isn't that enough?
> What more do you all want?

RYGB's citations from the Torah Shleima were shown to one of the gedolim 
who had stated that asserting that the world is greater than 6000 years 
is kefirah. After reading the list he acknowledged that there are views 
of accepted authorities that the world is more than 6000 years. When 
asked to reconcile this with his previous statement that such views were 
kefirah, he replied that since today it is accepted that the world is 
less than 6000 years old - the alternatives are no longer legitimate.

Daniel Eidensohn

I believe that the background to what HaRav Hillel Shlita is saying is
as follows. One of the most basic prefaces to the study of all Kabbalah
is the insistence and warning that everything said in Kabbalistic works
is to be taken as a moshol and that chas vesholom one should not ascribe
physical characteristics to spiritual things. This is compared to making
and idol and keeping it secret (Devorim 27:15: Orrur ho'ish asher ya'aseh
pessel umaseichoh to'avas Hashem... vesom baseiser), applying it to one
who makes a mental idol (that is, a mental picture of a physical entity
applied to the spiritual spheres) and even keeps it in the recesses of
his heart.

Therefore, the very notion of applying principles, concepts and statements
that are made in areas of Kabbalah to issues like the age of the physical
universe, is - to put it mildly - inappropriate.

The idea that all of Kabala is a moshol is only one of the opions on
how Kabala should be studied. There are several different approaches,
for example, to the concepts of right,left, above , below etc in the
writings of the Ari and subsequent mekubbalim discuss this issue. The
sort of restrictive approach that is expressed here as well as the idea
of Kabala as moshol is traceable, the former to R. Elyshiv (Baal Sheva
Vahlama) and the latter to the talmidei Hagro. I do not believe that it
is universally shared among chassidim and sefardim as well. There is a
long essay on this subject in the recent 9 volume comentary on Otzros
Chaim, end of volume 1.

I do not presume to know what R. Hillel meant when he wrote, "I also join
the gedolei hador mentioned above, and [I join in] their warning and
protest. And I add that in bringing proofs to their mistaken opinion
from the works of the Mekubalim, they include themselves among the
megalei ponim baTorah shelo kehalochoh veshelo beKabbalah ha'amitis,
and they distort divrei Elokim chaim to make them conform to their
invalid opinion."

I might interpret his words as saying that he objects to the act of
quoting Kabalistic works outside the traditional method of Kabala study
and that it constitutes megaleh panim. In any case, it is best to ask
him, if someone has access. Also, what about statements that are made
in the course of writing for the public in the nigleh context, like the
writings of R. Dessler. Have not those authors taken into consideration
the possibility of misinterpretation already and allowed wider scope
for non-experts?

I can certainly support the sentiment. We have had many problems
throughout history that arose from misapplying Kabalistic teachings to
areas of life and levels of existence that they did not apply to. I
presume that R. Hillel Shlita would be willing to discuss specific
statements with expert mekubalim and that he does not close off the
gates of interpretation to all.

I assume that he objects to what is seen as tendentious misapplication
of sources to support statements that are objectionable already for
other reasons.

May Hashem bless us with unity and peace,
M. Levin

[In Reply to RAY:]
>> OTOH, assuming (that like me) he never heard of East Timor, I don't see 
>> why that would disqualify his conclusion.

> Indonesia and East Timor are tightly coupled.
> Not knowing about East Timor and making decisions on why bad things happen 
> to Indonesians, is in my opinion akin to a color-blind Rav 
> paskening ma'aros shelios.

This is where we differ.

A *real* TC does everything with Da'as Torah. If a TC decides he has
an inspiration that will benefit the public then he doesn't need to do
years of research before he publishes it.

That's the concept of Da'as Torah. In other contexts:

- I have heard more than one TC proclaim that he's going off topic in
a speech, because he has a tradition that any inspirations he receives
during a speech are meant to be said over to the public he's currently
addressing.

- People ask advise on major issues from a TC after presenting the facts
for a few minutes.

How come the TC in the above well accepted examples don't have to do
hours of research?

- Everything else they say in a speech is well prepared and thought out.

- How does a TC dare give advise without knowing hours-worth of
information on the people involved? Would you give advise on medical
issues, marriage, education, careers and travelling to people you have
never seen before?

That's the "power" of Da'as Torah. It's the nearest thing we have to
prophesy.

>> As to the reason for the tsunami, we don't know why, and CAN'T know why.

As an aside, in this case (http://tinyurl.com/4jppc) RME was quoting a
gemora. So, your initial reaction may need revising.

:-)

[Email #2, in reply to RnCL: -mi]
> IF APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS HAD BEEN IN PLACE IN THE INDIAN 
> OCEAN, AND PEOPLE HAD BEEN WILLING TO LISTEN TO THE WARNINGS, THE VAST 
> MAJORITY OF THE LOSS OF LIFE WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED.

I had many issues with what you wrote, though I think my other posts on
the subject address most of them.

I also agreed with a lot of what you wrote.

Right now I would like to address the last line you wrote / shouted
:-) above.

Maybe it's the absolute reliance in Hi Tech that is "upsetting" the RBSO.

After all, the scientists did find out beforehand, but couldn't inform
the victims. System are in place but in the "wrong" place. As if the
RBSO is teasing us.

The previous major calamity was also aimed at Hi Tech. Sure it was
man-made - but who gave them the idea? Who made the towers fall? (Sure
there was a scientific reason why they fell - though they would have come
up with an equally convincing argument to explain why they didn't fall.)

So, following your approach, maybe the lesson is that we rely less on
Hi-tech and more on the RBSO.

Maybe putting up more advanced warning systems for various "one-off"
occurrences is getting dangerously close to building the tower of the
Dor Haflogo. (We already have the One Language (internet-English) as
well as people digging around the heavens to see how they can improve
life down here.)

Maybe it's a message: No matter how much you rely on Hi tech, He can
always get around it.

Just an idea,
- Danny

[Email #3, in reply to RYGB:]
>>"Even a ship going from Gaul to Spain is only blessed because of Israel".

>And you assume that is all there is, k'peshuto?!

I'm slowly getting used to this idea.

The beginning of the Bible is not to be taken literally. 
- Not Vayehi Erev, Vayehi Boker, Yom n+1.
- Not 2:5 that nothing grew until man was created

The kiddush is not to be taken literally - Ki sheshet yamim - [Shabbas
commemorates] that creation took 6 days.

OTOH when the gemorah states that maybe Meros is a star and it's
inhabitants are cursed by Devorah for not coming to help in her campaign,
we are expected to take that literally. After all, it's a proof of
extraterrestrial life.

Surely Rashi means something else when he says numerous times that a
posuk cannot lose it's simple meaning. (Cynical humour deleted, w/o the
moderators even asking.)

The next logical step would be to continue on through the rest of the
chumash, chalila. No way Chava's creation can be taken literally. Not a
chance that the snake story is literal. Surely there's scientific evidence
to disprove the Mabul. Once you're about it why don't you scientifically
disprove the 10 plagues and finally Matan Torah?

Where are we supposed to draw the line? 
[I know you'll answer that as long as you have "backing" you're on solid
ground. However, I suspect you can find an obscure midrash to support
just about any heretical proposal.]

It sure seems simpler to take the chumash literally, and midrashim and
meforshim that maintain otherwise metaphorically.

 - Danny, the guy from the 5765.5 year old planet.

>>If a TC decides he has an inspiration that will benefit the public then 
>>he doesn't need to do years of research before he publishes it.

Danny,

Determining the connection between Indonesia and East Timor does not require 
years of research. Information about the Indonesian holocaust of East Timor 
is well-known and easily available.

>How come the TC in the above well accepted examples don't have to do 
>hours of research?

I can't answer. But their lack of due diligence does not necessarily
make it correct.

My issue here is that since the Indonesia/East Timor is so blatant
and transparent, one would apply the principle of Occam's razor here.
Basically, the principle states that one should not make more assumptions
than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of
parsimony. It underlies all scientific modeling and theory building. It
admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models
of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's
razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts; variables or constructs
that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that,
developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance
of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

> That's the "power" of Da'as Torah. It's the nearest thing we have to 
> prophesy.

And if he is wrong, I guess he would be a Novi sheker?

Avroham

  Haflogo. (We already have the One Language (internet-English) as
> well as people digging around the heavens to see how they can improve 
> life down here.)
> Maybe it's a message: No matter how much you rely on Hi tech, He can 
> always get around it.

If the warning systems had been in place as much as anybody was able
and it had still failed, your message makes sense. In a situation where
nobody bothered (and the suggestion has been made that the reason nobody
bothered had to do with the relative wealth of the nations in question,
analogous to the wealthy house having the fire alarm and the poor house
not having one) I can only see the opposite being true. If anything,
if anybody was not trusting Hi Tech and trusting in the RBSO it has
to have been poorer nations of the Indian Ocean who failed to put the
warning system in place, in the same way as the inhabitants of the non
fire alarmed house can be said to be trusting simple folk, unlike their
sophisticated, high tech neighbours.

Regards
Chana

> Personally I would recommend that most people stay out of Kabbalah until
> they have mastered Talmudic Aggadah {e.g En Yaakov} and Midrashim such
> as Midrash Rabba and Tanchuma, Yalkut etc. Once one can plumb the real
> peshat of those stories than lich'ora one is ready for Kabbalah, too.

I would add, at the risk of not being PC, that studying the philosophical
works of the rishonim is an invaluable preparation to begin the study
of Kababla. If a person can't handle or comprehend the complexity and
concepts therein, they are not suited for Kabbala at all.

The Gro said that Kabbala of Ramak started off where philosophy ended
and Kabala of Ari started off where that of the Ramak ends off. I think
this is in Maase Rav.

M. Levin

> Personally I would recommend that most people stay out of Kabbalah until
> they have mastered Talmudic Aggadah {e.g En Yaakov} and Midrashim such
> as Midrash Rabba and Tanchuma, Yalkut etc. Once one can plumb the real
> peshat of those stories than lich'ora one is ready for Kabbalah, too.

I would add, at the risk of not being PC, that studying the philosophical
works of the rishonim is an invaluable preparation to begin the study
of Kababla. If a person can't handle or comprehend the complexity and
concepts therein, they are not suited for Kabbala at all.

The Gro said that Kabbala of Ramak started off where philosophy ended
and Kabala of Ari started off where that of the Ramak ends off. I think
this is in Maase Rav.

M. Levin

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
>You are correct in that there exists such an understanding but it is
> rejected by Tosafos in Shabbos 113 ( and elsewhere) and Be'er Halacha
> 320. In practice, it does not matter whether you don't want it or
> don' care about it. In addition, based on the precedent in 320, 18,
> the contemporary poskim follow the policy of using whatever avaialble
> leniences (snifim)to add to the concept of psik reisha dlo nicha lei
> and to permit in individual cases. I know this by experience but I also
> found this understanding in R. Rybiat's '39 melochos'.

I only have the English copy of 39 melochos (a wedding present), and he
says (page 1210, 4th volume) talking about using elevators:
"Only those who must avail themselves of this leniency (e.g. the elderly,
infirm, ill, weak, etc.) must ..."

I agree that there is room to be mekel, as I said to Ilana. I am talking
about those who aren't in great need and have another option other than
availing themselves of the leniency.

I may have been imprecise. When I said that one would want it, I meant
that it is good for someone that the elevator door does not close on
him. And since having the sensor before it starts to close means the
elevator won't close on him, this seems to be a nicha lei situation,
since it is beneficial to not get trapped in an elevator door.

39 Melochos, just a few pages later, discusses lights with sensors, and
that one is to avoid them unless there is absolutely no other way home.
I would think that this would be the same, that if one is able to take
the stairs, even with slight difficulty, they should.

 -Russell

I am interested in compiling a list of gedolim from the past and present
who attended college and/or had a college degree. Can anyone help?

Let me begin by mentioning Rav Avraham Pam, ZT"L and Rabbi Yaakov Perlow.

Readers may be surprised to learn that the Rema had an honorary doctorate!
(Can anyone verify this statement for me?)

The quote below is from Rav Breuer, His Life and His Legacy page 253. It
come from Rav Breuer's essay "The Frankfurt Yeshiva." (Does this fact
cast all of the Shulchan Aruch under a cloud of secularism? >:-})
[See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/remaBreuerSm.jpg>

YL

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


[ 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         ]