Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 109

Tuesday, April 5 2005

• Re: Eruvin
• zohar
• Re: zohar
• Re: Tevila bizmanah
• RE: zohar
• Re: zohar
• Re: kavod hatorah
• Re: kavod hatorah
• Re: kavod hatorah
• RE: Bracha for t'vila (was:Re: Orthodox tackle premarital sex dilemma)
• Re: Chazal and Rishonim - relative importance
• Re: R' Eliezer Berkovits
• Re: fallibility of chazal
• fallibility of Chazal
• RE: zohar
• Re: The 13 Rules and Logic
• 30 second delay
• Grammar in Quotes and in Tephillah
• Re: kavod hatorah

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:52:00 Noach Witty wrote: 
> Finally, I have also heard it said that Rav Aharon Kotler zt"l told
> RMF never to permit an eiruv in Manhattan or Queens.

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:42:20 Shmuel Pultman wrote:
> I don't believe that RAK said anything regarding Queens since RMF
> stated that the reason that he had signed against the Manhattan eruv was
> because RAK and others had signed (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum
> to O.C. 4:89). Why then would RMF allow an eruv in Kew Gardens Hills,
> Queens (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86) if RAK objected to one?"

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:26:53 Noah Witty wrote:
> You have misattributed what I said. I never said RAK said anything
> about Queens. Re-read my post please.
> I inquired as to why Q is more kal than Brklyn. Based on your post,
> why is it that there can be no eruv in Brooklyn?

Your question concerning the difference between Brooklyn and Queens is
a good one. To answer this question I think we have to illuminate Rav
Moshe Feinstein zt"l's chiddush in shishim ribuy.
Like most poskim, Rav Moshe originally maintained (Igros Moshe,
O.C. 1:109) that the criterion of shishim ribuy was dependent on
the street having shishim ribuy traversing it. However, later (ibid.,
1:139:5) he formulated his chiddush in which shishim ribuy when applied
to a city was not dependent on a street but over a twelve mil by twelve
mil area. Rav Moshe added that the criterion of shishim ribuy ovrim
bo would require a sizable population living and commuting into the
twelve mil by twelve mil area so that it could physically satisfy the
condition of 600,000 people collectively traversing its streets. When
these criteria are met, the area would be classified as a reshus harabbim
and a tzuras hapesach would not be adequate; dalsos at the pirtzos
would be needed. However, at this time Rav Moshe did not quantifying
how many people would be required to live in this twelve mil by twelve
mil area. On the other hand, with regard to a sratya (intercity road)
Rav Moshe maintained (ibid., 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16) that the shishim
ribuy would have to traverse the road itself every day.

In the first teshuvah quantifying how many people would be required to
live in this twelve mil by twelve mil area, Rav Moshe stated (ibid.,
4:87) that since in the past eruvin had been erected in cities with
populations exceeding shishim ribuy, one could not classify a city as a
reshus harabbim solely on the basis of the existence of a population of
600,000. He then added that although the actual number of inhabitants
could possibly vary according to the city, in Brooklyn it would most
likely require four to five times shishim ribuy. In the final two teshuvos
which followed regarding Brooklyn we see that Rav Moshe codified his
chiddush that the requirement is, "just about 3,000,000 people," (ibid.,
5:28:5) or, "at least five times shishim ribuy," (ibid., 5:29) which could
amount to even more than 3,000,000 people. Consequently, in the Chicago
eruv pamphlet (West Rogers Park Eruv, 1993 p. 23) it is stated that Rav
Dovid Feinstein shlita was in agreement that according to his! father's
 shitah there must be a minimum of 3,000,000 people in order for the
 city to be defined as a reshus harabbim.

While according to Rav Moshe's opinion if the population of Brooklyn
is 3,000,000 the borough would be classified as a reshus harabbim, in
his last teshuvah regarding eruvin in Brooklyn (ibid., O.C. 5:29; see
also 4:88), we see that Rav Moshe realized that the total population
of Brooklyn is less than 3,000,000. Nevertheless, he maintained that
despite this an eruv should not be constructed in Flatbush since in a
large city one may think that there is shishim ribuy over a twelve mil
by twelve mil area. Therefore, in Rav Moshe's final analysis a Brooklyn
eruv is not a matter of a d'oraysa.

Since both Brooklyn and Queens have similar populations of over 2,000,000,
why did Rav Moshe not apply the same objection that he had in Brooklyn to
negate an eruv in Kew Gardens Hills, Queens as well (see ibid., O.C. 5:29
where he also applied this objection to the city of Detroit proper).

However, there is a superior reason to allow an eruv in Brooklyn than
there is in Queens. Since we know nowadays that Brooklyn is circumscribed
on at least three sides with mechitzos and consequently is classified as a
reshus hayachid, even Rav Moshe would allow an eruv of tzuras hapesachim
to be erected there (see ibid., 5:28:5 where Rav Moshe stated regarding
Brooklyn's mechitzos that "Until now they did not exist but that one
can investigate" see also ibid., Addendum to O.C. 4:89).

[Email #2. -mi]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:25:43 Micha Berger Wrote:
> As RSB already wrote, one can't lump the Queens eiruvin together. Rav
> Moshe didn't give his approval -- AFAIK wasn't asked -- to the Forest
> Hills eiruv. Queens Boulevard bisects Forest Hills. Main St, the largest
> road in Kew Gardens Hills, isn't a problem even leshitas RMF. Which is
> why he wrote a teshuvah saying its eiruv is kosher.

Why then didn't Rav Moshe agree to a Boro Park eruv since there is
no large thoroughfare included in that eruv as well? Even the largest
thoroughfare included in the Flatbush eruv, Ocean Parkway, has much fewer
than shishim ribuy traversing it daily; why then didn't Rav Moshe allow
an eruv there?

While Rav Moshe did state (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86, and Addendum to
O.C. 4:89) that one of his justifications for allowing an eruv in Kew
Gardens Hills Queens was because they did not include a highway in
the boundaries of the eruv, this does not clarify why he did not have
a similar problem with the population of Queens as he had regarding
Brooklyn. Both Brooklyn and Queens have a population of between 2,000,000
and 3,000,000. Why should there be any difference halachically between
these two boroughs. At the minimum, Rav Moshe should have stated that
an eruv should not be constructed in Queens since in a large city one
may think that there is shishim ribuy over a twelve mil by twelve mil
area just as he maintained in Brooklyn (ibid., O.C. 5:29; see also 4:88).

However, the reason to allow an eruv in Brooklyn is superior to the one
in Queens, since we know nowadays that Brooklyn is circumscribed on at
least three sides with mechitzos and consequently is classified as a
reshus hayachid.

Shmuel Pultman

IIRC we've discussed the halachik theory that a rishon whose sefer
disappeared and later rediscovered had been left out of the flow
of halacha and could not be relied upon to change the halacha/mihag
kavua even though had he been in the flow, later authorities might
well have followed him. According to thus approach, Why didn't later
poskim/minhagists ignore the Zohar (which IIUC is tyhe work of a single
tanna which was "lost" for centuries from the halachik process)?

KT
Joel Rich

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:26:47AM +0000, joelirich@comcast.net wrote:
: IIRC we've discussed the halachik theory that a rishon whose sefer
: disappeared and later rediscovered had been left out of the flow
: of halacha and could not be relied upon to change the halacha/mihag
: kavua even though had he been in the flow...
:                         According to thus approach, Why didn't later
: poskim/minhagists ignore the Zohar (which IIUC is tyhe work of a single
: tanna which was "lost" for centuries from the halachik process)?

The question is whether the Zohar's role goes beyond that we allow
rishonim. Yes, we use the Zohar quantitatively more frequently, but do
we do so in a manner that requires more authority than that of a rishon?

My version of the question is IMHO at the heart of the machloqesin about
tefillin on chol hamo'ed and sitting in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres
in chu"l.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Quoting Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>:

> From: Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk>
>> Once benos Yisrael accepted the chumra of Rav Zeira to treat all nidos as
>> zavos, there is no tevila bizmana, as nobody tracks (or is able to track)
>> when they are nida and when they are (really) zava.  Tevila bizmana would
>> require, in addition to being "on schedule" in terms of the 11 days bein
>> nida lenida, tevila after the seven days **before** shiv'a nekiim.  The
>> tevila **after** shiv'a nekiim would be very UNlikely to be bizmana.

> I don't think anyone has that on their agenda.

There is a whole discussion in the rishonim on this point. Some argue
precisely this, that we can have no tevila bizmana today on this basis.
However, others hold that it is still tevila bizmana if the woman goes
to the mikvah at the first available opportunity, after counting her
shiva nekiim. After all, those who hold tevila bizmana in the gemora
require tevilos each time even when it is a tevila m'safek (see for
example the number of tevilos required by the woman who comes and says
"I don't know what I saw and I don't know whether I saw in the yammai
ziva or the yammai nida" ie Nida 69a et sec). So, if we say that all
women today are safek zivos, and you need shiva nekiim, then tevila
bizmana is the night following the shiva nekiim.

Regards
Chana

[Micha:]
> The question is whether the Zohar's role goes beyond that we allow
> rishonim. Yes, we use the Zohar quantitatively more frequently, but do
> we do so in a manner that requires more authority than that of a rishon?

> My version of the question is IMHO at the heart of the machloqesin about
> tefillin on chol hamo'ed and sitting in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres
> in chu"l.

Please expand (example?) on your " do we do so in a manner that requires
more authority than that of a rishon?" and why would we do so?

KT
Joel

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Please expand (example?) on your " do we do so in a manner that requires
: more authority than that of a rishon?" and why would we do so?

Simply: We do not (as a general rule) hold like a rishon keneged the
masqnah of amoraim or tannaim.

Do you know of an example where the Zohar presents a position that is
wrong according to sifrei nigleh of Chazal (as opposed to simply an
embellishment beyond it) and the and we hold like the Zohar?

Perhaps the Zohar, being hidden from the development of halakhah, is
not assigned more authority than the moment of its introduction into
that flow. In which case, your original question does not get off
the ground.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
>Have you, or anyone else, brought this to the attention of the rabbonim
>hamachshirim, and if so have they simply decided to ignore a psul which is
>"galui l'kol ho'amim" and allow of thousands, of yidden to be nichshol
>in Chilul Shabbos every week?

I have not brought it to their attention.Mutav sheyiheyu shogegin...
It is incumbent on the "consumer" of eruvin to be mevarer their kashrus.

One does not say mutav sheyehe shogegin on a de'oyrayseh.
And what about hocheyach toychiach?

As for the Reb Consumer, are you saying that although he can rely on his 
rav for issur vehetter and matters which the punishment is karos, he should
ignore his psak on eruvin?

SBA

R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote <<< ..., the majority of eruvin (even
those constructed by distinguished-looking rabbis with luxuriant white
beards and resplendent frocks or bekeshes) are pasul - some of them
"pasul l'mehadrin." ... >>>

So R'SBA asked <<< Have you, or anyone else, brought this to the attention
of the rabbonim hamachshirim, and if so have they simply decided to
ignore a psul which is "galui l'kol ho'amim" and allow of thousands,
of yidden to be nichshol in Chilul Shabbos every week? >>>

To which RYGB responded <<< I have not brought it to their
attention. Mutav sheyiheyu shogegin... It is incumbent on the "consumer"
of eruvin to be mevarer their kashrus. >>>

The "consumer"? I'm a consumer. Are you saying that I should stay a
shogeg until I know as much Hilchos Eruvin as you do?

WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT FROM US?

If you feel that mutav sheyiheyu shogegin, then why are you telling us
about it?

If you want us to be mevarer the kashrus, we've already done that! We
asked the rav, and he says it's kosher. We brought specific questions
about the eruv to the rav, and again, he says it's kosher.

My rav might be relying on shitos that you don't rely on, but that doesn't
make it <<< pasul l'mehadrin >>>. If you have specific complaints against
specific eruvin, then either keep them to yourself, or tell the rav in
charge so he can fix it, or tell the local residents so they'll be aware.

RYGB wrote <<< Indeed, if you travel down a certain heavily-traveled
highway in one of the boroughs of City of New York, you will see - "galui
l'kol ho'amim" - one of the eruvin that is relied upon by thousands,
if not tens of thousands, of yidden - pasul l'kol ha'dei'os, u'kdai
bizayon vo'kotzef. >>>

If you are correct, and you fail to publicize this, then you are as
guilty as those distinguished-looking rabbis with luxuriant white beards.

Akiva Miller

At 02:08 PM 4/4/2005, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
>The "consumer"? I'm a consumer. Are you saying that I should stay a shogeg 
>until I know as much Hilchos Eruvin as you do?

You are not the consumer. Your rabbi is, I have done my hishtadlus several 
times over - far and above the call - by writing a sefer to call the issues 
to their attention.

If your don't trust your rav, that is something else...

The rest of you post is therefore irrelevant.

YGB

Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
> The Shulchan Aruch poskens (siman 197, s'if 2) "If her husband is in
> the city, it is a mitzvah to tovel on time, so as not to be away from
> the mitzvah of pru urvu for even one night".

Looking up this SA sparked the following thought...

It started with: What if piryah verivyah is not a possibility for this
couple, due to age or other peroblem?

Which then lead me to: How valid is it to argue that a man in such a
relationship is oveir shivas zera levatala? Here's my sevara: In order for
it not to be levatala, one needs to be fulfilling either piryah verivyah
or "vedavaq be'ishto". In nidon didan, the couple are presumably avoiding
pregnancy, and she is not "ishto".

This seems like a big chiddush, since I never heard of be'ilas penuyah
being such a problem. So, if someone can show the flaw in my reasoning,
or a maqor showing it's not a chiddush, I would be thankful.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> I was taught in yeshiva that Chazal are to be seen and understood
> through the lens of the Rishonim. However, Rabbi Meiselman (Jewish
> Action devoted to Gra Fall 1997) asserted that this was the innovation
> of the Gra. This apparently means that prior to the Gra, Chazal could
> be understood independently of the Rishonim
...
> However, in contrast to the contemporary world of halacha, in the realm of
> aggada and hashkofa it seems that Rav Dessler requires that the Rishonim
> conform to chazal and have no independent understanding.

> Rav Dessler (4:355): 5) It is important however to distinguish between
> those explanations which are basically interpretation of the verses and
> those of our Sages which are the actual meaning of the verses. Given
> this clear distinction it is puzzling why many Rishonim strive to
> follow a different understanding than the true explanation given by
> our Sages? ...

I don't see REED as addressing the same question. RDE asks about whether
one needs to understand chazal through the lens of the rishonim. REED asks
about all those cases where rishonim are looking at the inyan ab initio,
getting different answers than chazal's, not acting as a lens at all.

Second, let's be clear that in the realm of halakhah, we agree there
is a process that includes a notion of precedent. Therefore, it's not
only a question of using the rishonim to understand the gemara. Rather,
also of the value of understandings of pesaqim in the gemara that violate
subsequent precedent as fo. Even if they are valid understandings, how
could they be valid din if they violate the masqanah reached in the era
of the rishonim?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Jonathan Baker wrote:
>Well, if you look at the SA as printed, the point becomes 
>obvious. RRW once put it succinctly: Ashkenazim don't 
>like codes.

My impression is that many Ashkenazim used the Semag as a code.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
Phone: (718) 951-1254  Fax: (718) 228-5150
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

From: <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
> Someday soon, an edition of the Bavli will be printed with the different
> layers of the text in different fonts and this will be graphically
> illustrated for all to see for themselves.

Are you merely expressing a pious hope or do you know something about 
someone's plan?

David Riceman 

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 David Glasner wrote
> Your reading of the Chazon Ish seems quite reasonable (though I don't mean
> to take sides in your discussion with RDE). However, I don't believe that
> you resolve the difficulty in the position of the Chazon Ish, because the
> whole point of Mamrim 2:1 is that, by law, the beit din ha-gadol has the
> right to uproot the p'sak of an earlier beit din ha-gadol even though the
> earlier beit din was GREATER than the later one in wisdom and numbers.
> So how can that be a "nesinas ta'am" for the Kesef Mishna's attempt
> to reconcile the Rambam's p'sak with Talmudic methodology when that
> it is gufa the point of the Rambam: the greater stature of the Tanaim
> doesn't matter for purposes of determining the halakhah based on peirush
> ha-p'sukim?

Simcha Coffer wrote:
> I admit that this approach does not seem to "lamdush" but the idea that
> there were eras in our history where the yeridas hadoros engendered a
> qualitative yerida in the profundity of klal yisroels grasp of the Torah
> is not a foreign idea. Thus, Rav Chaim Volozhiner explains the Mishna
> in Avos as follows: Moshe "keebail" Torah meysinai, Moshe accepted,
> meaning in its entirety, with a full grasp of the Torah, but it doesn't
> say and Yehoshua was "mikabel" from Moshe because Moshe's grasp of the
> Torah was qualitatively greater than Yehoshua's. It therefore states
> "misara leeHoshua". The word mesira implies giving although the receiver
> does not receive it in its entirety. The Mishna then continues 'Yehoshua
> to Zekeinim, Zekeinin to Neveim and the Neveim "misaruha" to the Anshei
> Kneses Hagidola. From Yehoshua down to the AKH, the term mesira is
> not used because this entire era (890 years approx.) was qualitatively
> similar. But when nevua died out in the times of the AKH, we find once
> again the term mesira from the Neveim to the AKH because their grasp
> was qualitatively inferior to the neveim. Thus, we can say that what the
> Rambam was referring to was a certain era that was qualitatively similar
> in their grasp of Torah. However, if there is a profound yerida, then,
> as the Chazon Ish states, "haemes cheeyaiv osam", the truth of the vastly
> superior grasp of the previous generations *obligated* these great men
> to accept their words unconditionally.

Well, now you are really bringing in the heavy artillery. First the
Chazon Ish and now R. Chaim Volozhiner. So this is not me talking,
this is the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah 25a-b (Soncino not AS translation).

Our Rabbis taught: Why were not the names of these elders mentioned? So
that a man should not say, Is So-and-so like Moses and Aaron? Is So-and-so
like Nadab and Abihu? Is So-and-so like Eldad and Medad? Scripture also
says, And Samuel said to the people, It is the Lord that made Moses and
Aaron, and it says [in the same passage], And the Lord sent Jerubaal
and Bedan and Jepthah and Samuel. Jerubaal is Gideon. Why is he called
Jerubaal? Because he contended with Baal. Bedan is Samson. Why is he
called Bedan? Because he came from Dan. Jepthah is Jepthah. It says
also: Moses and Aaron among his priests and Samuel among them that call
on his name. [We see therefore that] the Scripture places three of the
most questionable characters on the same level as three of the the most
estimable characters, to show that Jerubaal in his generation is like
Moses in his generation, Bedan in his generation is like Aaron in his
generation, Jepthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation,
[and] to teach you that the most worthless, once he has been appointed
a leader of the community, is to be accounted like the mightiest of the
mighty. Scripture says also: And thou shalt come unto the priests the
Levites and to the judge that shall be in those days. Can we then imagine
that a man should go to a judge who is not in his days? This shows that
you must be content to go to the judge who is in your days. It also says;
Say not, How was it that the former days were better than these.

Now concerning the idea that recognition of a profound yerida caused the

Amoraim to conclude that they could no longer argue with the contrary
opinions of the Tanaim because, to use the Chazon Ish's formulation,
"ha-emes cheeyaiv osam," aside from the obvious (to me at any rate) fact

that the Rambam explicitly rejects that idea in his psak in Mamrim 2:1,
the idea was even more emphatically rejected by the beit din of R.
Yehoshua, R. Gamliel and R. Akiva, who rejected a bat kol (a bat kot!)
that confirmed that the yeshiva shel ma'alah paskeend in accord with
R. Eliezer against their own position. Can you possibly believe that the
yerida between the yeshivah shel ma'alah and the beit of R. Yehoshua et
al. was a lesser yerida than that between the Tanaim and the Amoraim?
Halilah la-hashov kein. If the Amoraim were so overawed by the Tanaim
that they felt compelled, against their better judgment, to accept upon
themselves the decisions of the Tanaim with which they disagreed, how
is it possible that R. Yehoshua et al. would have dared to face down the

RSO except because "ha-emes cheeyaiv osam" to do so. So I am afraid
that, not even with R. Chaim Volozhiner's help, have you succeeded in
resolving the obvious conflict between the Rambam's psak in Mamrim 2:1
and the Chazon Ish.

David Glasner

[Micha:]
> Do you know of an example where the Zohar presents a position that is
> wrong according to sifrei nigleh of Chazal (as opposed to simply an
> embellishment beyond it) and the and we hold like the Zohar?

I don't know of any off hand-I remember being told that the GRA said
that all but X (4?) seeming contradictions between the zohar and nigleh
could be resolved. I'm sure someone must have studied this issue

> Perhaps the Zohar, being hidden from the development of halakhah, is not
> assigned more authority than the moment of its introduction into that
> flow. In which case, your original question does not get off the ground.

There are a number of minhagim that are ascribed to it-one we discussed
was the use of a ring for a wedding. Since this was a nonJewish custom,
we seem to be relying on the Zohar to keep it from being chukat haakum.
Didn't you mention tfillin on chol hamoed as an example where many were
machria based on the zohar?

KT
Joel

RML <mlevinmd@aol.com> wrote:
> If DYO is loogic, why do we need to derive it from a verse?

I would love to know. However, if it's not logic, can you explain to me
in what way it isn't?

To rephrase what I said last time, perhaps more clearly:

QvC is based on the idea that anything in the set of issurim in the case
of the qal must be in the set of issurim in the case of the chamur. (Or
v.v. about qulos, but we'll stick to this case.) That's a straight a
fortiori, or if you'd like a typical syllogism of classical Darii (All
X are Y, A is an X, therefore A is a Y) form.

I suggested that it qualifies as a derashah because identifying the
notion that X is chamur and Y is qal, and that one is a superset of the
issurim of the other, is not logic. Logic requires working from first
principles, the postulates from which you reason, and I suggested that
it's the postulate that is formed by derashah.

Dayo is saying that if A is not an issur in the qal case, but close to
one, one can not assume it's an issur in the chamur case. IOW, that
the subset superset relationship is not fuzzy, or at least you can't
assume the magnitude of fuzziness. You can't say it's so close to that
which is assur in the qal, of course it's assur in the chamur. Dayo,
it's enough to draw the QvC to the case actually in the set.

As in the textbook case. Even though it makes sense to extend Miriam's
banishment to 2 weeks, 1 week keneged Hashem-as-Father and one keneged
Hashem-as-Mother, one can't deduce that from QvC.

As I said, it seems to be a rule of Yefetic syllogism, even moreso than
Semitic recognition of gray area.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

> On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 21:45 +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> In a related issue R. Avraham Yosef in his program on Purim stated that
>> one answers amen to a beracha on radio or TV and he explictly added this
>> is even if there is a significant delay between the beracha and hearing
>> it because of the distance. He gave the example of the synagogue in
>> Alexandrea where they relied on flags to say amen and we assume there
>> was a time lag because of the flags.

> really? only delay should be flag waver reacting, as speed of light
> makes any other lag inconsiquential.

He assumes that the halacha in Alexandria would not change if the
bet knesset were so large that a sequence of flag wavers were needed.
These indeed would be comparable to a radio signal that goes through
several repeaters.

-- 
Eli Turkel

RnTK asked on Areivim:
> When  one is quoting one does not fix the dikduk.  When I bensh I do not
> say  "Na'arah hayisi, gam zakanti...."  However, I have wondered whether I
> should fix "kol zman shehaneshama vekirbi modeh [=> modah?] ani
> lefanecha....."
> in the birchos hashachar--i.e., is that a quote, a fixed passage  which must
> be recited exactly as written, a la Tehillim, or is that  supposed to be
> varied according to the sex of the davener?

On the subject of tefillos that aren't quotes...

According to the GRA, upon waking up you should say "Modah ani lefanekha"
and in birkhos haShachar "shelo asani nochriyah".

(He has men say "... nachri", since it makes little sense for members of
the "goy qadosh" shouldn't say "shelo asani goy". First, because "goy"
as "member of a nation" is not the original meaning; second, because
the Jewish People /are/ lefi divrei HQBH a goy.)

As for quotes, we reconjugate pesuqim from Tehillim written in the
singular to the plural quite often. "Amareinu ha'azinah H..." "Yihyu
leratzon imrei fi..." is the quote as used after Shemonah Esrei, however,
it becomes "finu" in Selichos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

At 10:56 AM 4/4/2005, [RSBA] wrote:
>From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
>>Have you, or anyone else, brought this to the attention of the rabbonim
>>hamachshirim, and if so have they simply decided to ignore a psul which is
>>"galui l'kol ho'amim" and allow of thousands, of yidden to be nichshol
>>in Chilul Shabbos every week?

>I have not brought it to their attention.Mutav sheyiheyu shogegin...
>It is incumbent on the "consumer" of eruvin to be mevarer their kashrus.

>One does not say mutav sheyehe shogegin on a de'oyrayseh.
>And what about hocheyach toychiach?

It is not a d'orysa. It is a d'rabbanan.

I was mekayem the din Tochachah by publishing a sefer on the topic.

>As for the Reb Consumer, are you saying that although he can rely on his 
>rav for issur vehetter and matters which the punishment is karos, he should
>ignore his psak on eruvin?

When I say consumer I mean the Mara d'Asra.

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         ]